update_mcp_integration_capabilities

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

The description implies the operation is idempotent (setting enabled state), but annotations state idempotentHint=false. This is a contradiction. The description adds useful context (immediate effect, visibility changes), but the contradiction undermines trust, leading to a score of 1.

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 is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding behavioral and usage guidance in the second. No extraneous information.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations providing safety hints, the description covers the main points (immediate effect, visibility, guidance to list first). However, the idempotency contradiction reduces reliability, and it lacks details about prerequisites or reversibility, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'id' and 'capabilities'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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's purpose: 'Bulk enable or disable capabilities on an MCP integration.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like list_mcp_integration_capabilities and update_mcp_integration by mentioning scope and immediate effects.

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 explicitly advises using list_mcp_integration_capabilities first to get the current state, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. a sibling. It implies the tool is for bulk updates, but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives beyond listing.

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