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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful prerequisite context but does not elaborate on the destructive behavior (e.g., full resync clearing watermarks and regenerating insights), which the schema's fullResync parameter partly documents.

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 front-loaded with the core action and consists of short, purposeful sentences. 'Optionally configure auto-sync settings' is slightly vague but still 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?

With annotations covering the destructive safety profile and the schema fully documenting all parameters, the description supplies the key prerequisite and an adjacent tool reference. It could do more to explain the operational impact of repeated or full resync, but it is adequate for 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% and all 8 parameters are documented with formats, defaults, and bounds. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond naming example sources, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Sync runs from an external integration source'. This clearly separates it from listing tools like list_runs and from sync_context_from_url, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 a clear prerequisite ('The integration must be configured first') and points to list_integrations for setup. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or how it compares to other sync or verification siblings.

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