sync_products

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool triggers a sync, returns specific fields, and requires an API key. However, it does not disclose possible side effects, idempotency, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third notes return and auth. Front-loaded and no waste.

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 job-triggering tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, return shape, and auth. Missing error conditions and whether sync replaces or merges, but overall fairly 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the return shape and what the markup parameter does ('with a specified markup'), though currency and lang are not further elaborated beyond their schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Trigger', specifies the resource 'one product already staged in the import list', and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying to use get_sync_jobs for progress and add_to_import_list if not staged.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (product already staged) and when-not-to-use (check progress, use get_sync_jobs; if not staged, call add_to_import_list first). This is excellent guidance for correct tool selection.

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