trigger_resync

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation may take significant time and resources, but does not detail other behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, affects existing syncs, or requires specific permissions.

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 concise sentences. First sentence front-loads the purpose, second adds a critical caution. No extraneous words.

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 description covers the basic operation and a caution. However, it lacks context on output, prerequisites, and comparative guidance with siblings like 'trigger_sync' and 'resync_tables'. For a tool with no annotations and an output schema, 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 a single parameter 'connection_id' fully described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 it triggers a full historical resync for a Fivetran connection. It includes specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('Fivetran connection'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'trigger_sync' (likely incremental) and 'resync_tables' (granular) by specifying 'full historical resync'.

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 provides a caution about time and resource consumption, which is a usage consideration, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'trigger_sync' or 'resync_tables'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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