tealfabric_update_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether this is a partial or full-replacement update, what happens to configuration when connector_id changes, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 single sentence contains no waste but is under-specified rather than concise; brevity here is a symptom of missing content, not of efficient packaging. There is no front-loaded structure because there is only one tautological clause.

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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, two enums, no annotations, and no output schema demands substantial description, and this one supplies a single sentence. An agent could not call this tool correctly without inspecting the schema and guessing at update semantics.

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 10 parameters at 10% schema description coverage (only integration_id is documented in the schema), the description must compensate and supplies nothing about name, type, status, is_active vs status, configuration, connector_id vs connector_configuration, or executable_by_ai_agents. The ambiguity between overlapping fields like status and is_active is left entirely unresolved.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Update an existing integration'), adding only the word 'existing'. It does not say what aspects of an integration can be updated or how this differs from tealfabric_create_integration or tealfabric_delete_integration beyond the obvious verb.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool versus create/delete/list integration siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing integration_id, or that the integration must not be running). The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name.

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