integration_call

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the permission requirements and that this is an egress operation, and it warns that stubs refuse when prerequisites are unmet. It does not mention side effects or return behavior, but given the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint are false, some of this is expected. It provides useful failure-mode information.

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 first sentence is concise and to the point. The second paragraph, while explanatory, is somewhat verbose with metaphors like 'egress needs THREE keys' and could be streamlined, but it remains readable and well-structured.

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?

The description lacks information about the expected response format, error handling beyond 'stubs refuse', and meanings of the parameters. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap. An agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results, making it incomplete for a complex API-calling operation.

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 description does not explain any of the six parameters (app_id, name, method, path, body, params). With zero schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to format them, making it impossible to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 function: calling an external API through a registered integration adapter. It provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other tools like integration_status. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 explains the three prerequisites (integration_net capability, operator's consent, and an egress lease) and notes that stubs will refuse if any are missing. It does not, however, compare this tool to alternative calling tools or state when it should be chosen over them, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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