edubase_post_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false, and destructiveHint: false, which tells the agent this is a mutation that may not be idempotent. The description aligns (creating a new one is a mutation) but adds no new behavioral context like authentication requirements, consequences of duplicate calls, or side effects beyond what the annotations imply. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single clear sentence with no redundant or extraneous text. It is perfectly front-loaded: the verb and object are in the first few words. There is no filler, making it easy to read in a glance.

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?

Given a 6-parameter tool with a 100% described schema and an output schema present, the one-line description is minimally viable for an agent to understand core purpose. However, it does not cover any usage context or constraints like the fact that for LMS integrations you need type/lti/platform, which the schema hints at but the tool description itself does not reinforce. It also doesn't warn about any limitations or contrast with similar tools, so it's adequate but not thorough.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description ('Create a new API or LMS integration') adds no tool level detail about parameters beyond what the schema already says; it doesn't mention defaults like 'type' defaulting to 'api', or the condition that platform/lti are required for LMS types. Since the schema covers everything, the description adds little value here.

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 'Create a new API or LMS integration' states a specific verb (create), the resource (integration), and the two main variants. The action is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this from read (get_integrations/get_integration), update (patch_integration), and delete (delete_integration) siblings. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools, but the 'create new' phrasing is distinct enough.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as PATCH (edubase_patch_integration) or DELETE (edubase_delete_integration). It also doesn't state when not to use it, nor does it surface context like creating an LMS integration requiring the type, lti, or platform. The schema has these hints, but the description itself is silent about usage conditions.

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