resync_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that it re-syncs historical data for specified tables, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, asynchronicity, or whether data is overwritten or appended. This is insufficient 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase serves a purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is adequate for a simple trigger tool but lacks details on asynchronous behavior, error states, or how to monitor the resync. It is minimally 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 both parameters having descriptions. The description adds context about re-syncing only historical data and not the full connection, but does not add further format constraints or examples beyond the schema's example. 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 verb 'trigger' and resource 'historical resync for specific tables within a connection', and distinguishes from a full resync by saying 'not the entire connection'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'trigger_resync' and 'trigger_sync'.

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 includes when to use it ('when you need to refresh specific tables without a full resync'), implying when not to use a full resync. It does not explicitly name alternatives from siblings, but the contrast is clear.

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