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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds little beyond stating it's a 'manual sync execution' – it doesn't disclose potential side effects, whether it's asynchronous, or whether it returns a job ID. Given the presence of annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It immediately communicates the action without wasted words.

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?

The tool is a mutation with a nested params object and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what happens after triggering (e.g., returns a run ID, is asynchronous, requires connector to be configured). It is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly.

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%, with both parameters (connector_id and params) already described. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so baseline 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 ('Trigger') and resource ('manual connector sync execution'), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like connector_test or connector_status, but does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus connector_enable, connector_test, or connector_discover. The description provides no context about prerequisites (e.g., connector must be enabled) or scenarios where a manual sync is appropriate.

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