sync_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully disclose idempotency ('idempotently extracts claims') and the side effect of automatic contradiction discovery, which is real behavioral value. It omits important traits for an ingestion/write tool: whether existing claims are mutated or deleted, required permissions, failure/partial-failure behavior, and whether repeated calls are cheap.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the identity ('Unified ingestion tool') followed by verbs and effects. It could be split for scannability but every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with a nested, connector-dependent input object and no output schema, the description covers the what but not the how: it never explains where to obtain valid connector-specific input payloads or what the sync returns. Adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent assembling the nested 'input' argument.

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 schema already documents connector, input, and runDiscovery; baseline 3 applies. The description only restates the connector examples already present in the schema and does not clarify the shape of the free-form, connector-specific 'input' object.

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 (synchronizes) plus the resource (any registered source connector) and enumerates the supported connector types, which distinguishes it from the singular siblings sync_document, sync_website, and sync_github_repository. It also names the two downstream effects (claim extraction, contradiction discovery), so an agent knows exactly what this call does without opening the schema.

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 word 'unified' implies this is the generic entry point that covers any connector type, which suggests when to prefer it over the per-connector siblings. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite (e.g. connector must be registered/listed first) is stated, and nothing tells the agent how this relates to the plural sync_sources sibling.

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