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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the mechanism behind that: a mode='sync' binding copies no rows until a run executes, which explains why the operation mutates state and why it is not idempotent in effect. It stops short of saying what a re-run does to already-copied rows (overwrite? append?), which matters for a destructive tool.

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?

Leads with the action and the return value, then layers the prerequisites and exclusions. Three sentences, each doing work; slightly denser than necessary with the parenthetical re-run reminder but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly states the return (run id), along with the prerequisite tool and the binding modes that make a run unnecessary. For a destructive one-parameter trigger the remaining gap is the fate of existing target rows on repeat runs.

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 the single parameter already names its origin ("from build_connect_data_source"). The description references the connector only implicitly via the prerequisite build_bind_data_source step; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource ("Trigger a SYNC RUN on a data connector and return the run id") and scopes it to manual/mode='sync' bindings, so the agent knows exactly what effect to expect. It never mentions the sibling connector_run tool, which is the obvious near-duplicate an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance ("call this after build_bind_data_source"), a re-invocation rule ("again whenever the source data changes"), and an exclusion ("Live-read/warehouse bindings don't need runs"). When-to-use, when-to-repeat, and when-not-to-use are all present.

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