update_integration_models

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it states non-readOnly behavior and warns of global side effects. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, and the description complements by detailing the impact on workspaces and the return value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the actions and immediately follows with the crucial warning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema and simple parameters, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, global impact, and return value. No additional context is necessary for safe and correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes all parameters well. The description mentions 'enable, disable, or register custom models' which maps to the model properties but adds little new meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly lists the actions 'Enable, disable, or register custom models for an integration,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_model' by focusing on modification rather than deletion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong usage context by warning that changes affect 'every workspace using it' and advising to 'confirm the downstream impact first.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_integration' or 'delete_integration_model'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.