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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: it queues work asynchronously, does not imply completion, requires explicit user confirmation, and does not send anything through the provider. These are non-obvious traits that help an agent avoid incorrect assumptions about a sync operation.

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?

The description is three short sentences, each earning its place: action and requirement, async/completion semantics, and negative behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important condition and contains no redundant filler.

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 description covers the key operational facts: confirmation, queuing, non-completion, and no provider send. With a full input schema and an output schema present, this is nearly complete, though naming get_connected_source_status for checking sync completion would make it even stronger.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds confidence around the confirmed parameter and the meaning of 'source', but it does not need to add more since the schema carries the parameter-level 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?

The description names a specific action ('request a fresh import'), a clear resource ('one connected source'), and distinguishes itself by stating it queues work and never means the import is complete. This clearly separates it from related tools like get_connected_source_status.

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?

The description explicitly conditions use on explicit user confirmation, which matches the confirmed const true parameter. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for checking status or connection setup, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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