sync_from_pendo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical safety behavior: 'Merges by stable id — concepts are never touched,' which is essential context. It also mentions the environment variable prerequisite. However, it doesn't detail side effects like whether existing data is overwritten or what happens on failure, though the key safety guarantee is covered.

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 only two sentences with the main action first, followed by a prerequisite and a safety note. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: the action, prerequisite, alternative, and a safety guarantee. It doesn't mention the return value or error modes, but these are not critical for a simple sync tool, and the overall context is sufficient.

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?

Both parameters (appId and expandAll) have full descriptions in the schema, covering their purpose and scoping behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool syncs features, pages, segments, and product areas from the Pendo REST API, using the specific verb 'sync' and resource list. It also distinguishes itself from register_entities by naming it as an alternative, making its unique purpose obvious.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (requires PENDO_INTEGRATION_KEY) and when not to ('without it, use register_entities'), providing a clear alternative. The 'OPTIONAL' prefix further clarifies its non-required status.

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