configure_offline_sync

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

The description adds only the '[Write]' tag, which merely restates the readOnlyHint: false annotation. It provides no additional behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, or impact on mobile clients. The annotations already convey the safety profile, so the description contributes almost nothing beyond them.

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 a single sentence plus a tag, front-loaded and free of redundant text. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required), full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient for tool selection. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral details prevents a perfect score, but these are adequately compensated by structured metadata.

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 100%, and each parameter (query, table, max_records) is already clearly described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Configure' and identifies the resource 'which tables/records are available offline in mobile,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling mobile tools like create_mobile_app_config or list_mobile_app_configs.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the purpose and name, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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