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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: MCP-created connectors are trigger:manual, so sync bindings copy no rows until a run executes, and it returns a run id. It does not contradict annotations and discloses the manual-trigger behavior that is not obvious from schema alone.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core action and return value, the second provides essential context and sequencing. No redundant words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, the manual-trigger nuance, and the alternative for live-read bindings. Nothing essential is missing 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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already specifies 'The connector to run (from build_connect_data_source)'. The tool description reinforces the source of the connector but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema documentation.

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 ('Trigger a SYNC RUN') and a resource ('data connector'), and explicitly returns the run id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_bind_data_source (binding) and connector_run by clarifying it executes a sync run rather than other operations. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call: 'after build_bind_data_source (and again whenever the source data changes)'. It also specifies when NOT to use it: 'Live-read/warehouse bindings don't need runs (they read the source directly)'. This clearly differentiates from alternatives and gives a sequence.

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