Knowledge Source Sync

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

The annotations establish a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds genuinely new context: the work is asynchronous and results must be retrieved separately. It stops short of noting that concurrent invocation may spawn overlapping syncs or what permissions are needed, which would matter given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded and the follow-up instruction is second, in the order an agent needs them.

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?

With no output schema and an async operation, the description correctly covers the critical gap by explaining that execution is background and results come from knowledge_source_status. Missing details such as whether a sync already in progress is rejected or whether permission scopes are required keep it from being fully complete.

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%; both organizationId and sourceId are documented in the schema, including cross-references to organization_list and knowledge_source_list. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('start a sync') and resource ('a knowledge source') and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like knowledge_source_status, knowledge_source_get, and knowledge_source_list. An agent can tell immediately that this triggers an asynchronous job rather than reading state.

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?

Tells the agent what to do after invoking it ('check knowledge_source_status for the result'), which gives clear follow-up context. It does not, however, say when not to call it — e.g., that repeated calls are not idempotent and may start duplicate syncs — so the routing guidance is good but incomplete.

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