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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the call is asynchronous, returns before completion, and notes materialize over the next minute or two, plus an explicit instruction to report 'queued' not 'finished'. It does not address the destructiveHint=true annotation or explain what a sync overwrites, which is the one remaining behavioral 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the async timing, then the response instruction. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call and report correctly.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description covers what an agent must know: fire-and-forget semantics and how to phrase the result. It omits prerequisites (Granola must be connected — see add_connector) and failure behavior, which would round it out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly implies no scoping arguments are needed to trigger the sync.

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?

States a specific verb (pull/queue sync) on a specific resource (Granola notes) and names the effect (notes land in the brain). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling readers like get_granola_notes or search_granola_transcripts because it explicitly says the job is to trigger a fetch, not return notes.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use when the user wants newest notes immediately rather than waiting for the six-hourly cycle. It does not explicitly exclude the read siblings (get_granola_notes / get_granola_status) as the follow-up path, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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