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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=false — 're-sync' is a state-changing operation — and it surfaces the confirm-gate preview behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't say what local data gets overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent or safe to retry, or what permissions are required, so the burden is only partly carried.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the confirm-gate caveat is parenthetically appended where it is easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, minimal annotations and an undocumented required id, the description covers what it does and the preview/execute split but stops short of error behavior, permission requirements, or what the agent should do after a preview. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: the confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema, and organizationId has no schema description at all. The description only weakly compensates by calling the target 'a gym's' subscription, which hints that organizationId identifies the gym but adds no format or sourcing detail.

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 (re-sync) plus the resource (a gym's seat subscription state) and the source of truth (the payment provider). This clearly distinguishes it from the neighboring cancel/resume/change_tier subscription tools, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Use is only implied: an agent must infer this is for when local seat counts have drifted from the payment provider. No when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. admin role or connected billing provider), and no explicit pointer to the sibling mutations it competes with.

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