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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false implies a write, matching 'Store'). It adds the 'safe non-secret' boundary beyond what the annotations convey, which is useful misuse prevention. However, the safety profile is largely already carried by the annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description adds only marginal behavioral context. No contradiction.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical alternative-routing to set_secret comes second. Every clause earns its place.

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 non-destructive write tool with full parameter schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essential decision the agent must make — what data belongs here vs set_secret. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists and this is a storage operation where the return is not critical to correct invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter (app_id, provider, config, is_active) already explained in the schema. The description reinforces the config constraint ('safe metadata only'), which echoes the schema, but doesn't add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 for full schema coverage 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 states a specific scope — storing safe, non-secret integration metadata for an app — and explicitly marks the boundary against set_secret, which handles API keys/tokens. The verb 'Store' is slightly generic, but the resource (integration metadata) and the non-secret qualifier distinguish this clearly from its most probable confusion sibling.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use set_secret for API keys/tokens.' This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and names the exact alternative for the most likely mis-selection. It doesn't cover other sibling relationships (e.g., vs list_integrations), but for the critical secret-vs-metadata decision the guidance is direct and unambiguous.

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