update_mcp_integration

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

Description adds important behavioral info: 'Changes apply immediately' and 'altering url or auth_type can break connected clients.' This goes beyond annotations (destructiveHint=false, etc.) by warning of service disruption.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key actions. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, output schema exists, and many siblings, the description covers core behavior, warns of risks, and provides an alternative. Lacks output details but output schema covers that.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described). Description only mentions a subset (name, description, URL, auth, transport) but doesn't add syntax or detail beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool updates an MCP integration and lists specific fields (name, description, URL, auth, transport). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool update_mcp_server by specifying when to use that alternative.

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?

Explicitly says 'use update_mcp_server when you only need to rename or re-describe a server,' providing a clear alternative and when-not-to-use condition.

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