sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing asynchronous execution, immediate return, background duration, and the added file-fetching behavior when download is true. It does not mention potential side effects or permission requirements, but the core asynchronous trait is clearly communicated.

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 tightly written: the first sentence front-loads the core behavior, and the second adds necessary temporal and parameter context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler wording.

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 single-optional-parameter async tool, the description covers what the tool does, when it returns, how long work takes, how to retrieve results, and the parameter's effect. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be repeated, and the guidance to poll sync_status closes the loop for the agent.

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%, so the description must add meaning beyond the bare boolean type and title. It explicitly explains that download=true triggers file fetching and longer runtime, implying the default is metadata-only sync. This compensates for the schema gap, though it could have also stated what happens when download is false.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Start a watch cycle') and clearly states that the tool returns immediately after launching background work. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling sync_status by framing sync as the initiation step and sync_status as the polling step.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to expect completion ('takes minutes', 'never runs inside a tool call') and directs it to poll sync_status for the result. It also explains the conditional usage of the download parameter and its time impact, leaving no ambiguity about invocation flow.

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