va_sync_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly flags itself as a WRITE OPERATION and notes it starts an async sync, which is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't mention what the sync job does with the KB, any rate limits, or what to do after triggering (e.g., poll with va_get_sync_status). The explicit WRITE OPERATION and async disclosure earn a middle score.

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, zero wasted words. The key behavioral facts (write operation, async) are front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a single parameter.

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 is simple (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), so the complexity is low. But it's an async write operation with no companion guidance — the description doesn't tell the agent what response to expect or that va_get_sync_status exists to check progress. Notable that the sibling list includes va_get_sync_status, which the description never references. For such a simple tool this is adequate but could easily add one line about polling.

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 0% and there is a single parameter kbId. The description mentions the tool operates on a KB but never mentions or explains kbId — the agent must infer that kbId identifies which KB to sync. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory (kb ID), the description adds nothing beyond the schema, and at 0% coverage it should compensate more.

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 it runs an external knowledge-base sync job for a Zoom Virtual Agent KB. 'Kick off' is a reasonable verb indicating async initiation, and it notes it's a WRITE OPERATION that starts an async sync. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the distinction is reasonably clear given the va_* namespace.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. It states this starts an async sync and is a write operation, but doesn't explain when to choose this vs. va_get_sync_status (which would be the polling companion) or when sync is needed. The description doesn't mention prerequisites or context for when to invoke this tool.

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