Sync Channel

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it triggers a sync, with direction (pull/push/both) and returns sync status/counts. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the effect on data (pulls reservations, pushes calendar). No contradiction.

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 two sentences in English and then Spanish, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and actions. Every sentence adds value.

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 has two params, output schema exists, and the description explains sync direction and return values (status/counts). No critical gaps; it covers purpose, parameters, and output well. Could mention that sync may take time or that it is an async operation, but not required.

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 coverage is 100%: channelId and direction are described in the schema. The description mentions pulling and pushing, which aligns with the direction parameter but adds no new details beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 triggers a manual sync of a booking channel, specifying it pulls new reservations and/or pushes calendar updates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (no other sync tool exists), so it is a specific verb+resource pair.

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 implicitly communicates when to use: when you need to manually sync a channel (pull/push). There are no alternative sync tools among siblings, so explicit when-not or alternatives are not necessary, but it could briefly mention that automatic syncs exist or that this is for manual triggers.

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