ads_integration_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: secrets are not stored, so credentials are referenced indirectly. However, it omits duplicate-handling/idempotency, required permissions, and what config/status do, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key constraint ('without storing secrets') front-loaded. Efficient, though the size is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested config object, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is thin. An agent cannot confidently fill parameters or predict behavior from it.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely doesn't. It hints at the provider (integration type) and secret handling (secret_env), but leaves id, name, config (nested object), and the status enum undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Register) and resource (external advertising, CRM or webhook integration), which is clear and distinguishable from read-only siblings like ads_integration_list. It does not explicitly contrast with ads_integration_plan, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the relevant alternatives (ads_integration_plan, ads_integration_list) despite their existence. The verb implies 'create a new integration', but the agent must infer this.

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