Sync entities and metrics for an ad account from the platform now

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the confirmation contract: nothing is executed without confirm=true and there is no server-side dry run, which tells the agent the preview is mandatory. It stops short of saying what data is overwritten, whether the sync is destructive to existing entities, or whether the call is long-running/rate-limited.

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 compact sentences, with the write/confirm warning placed prominently at the end where it is hard to miss. 'Now' and the endpoint parenthetical are slightly redundant with the title but still earn their space as routing cues.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema and open-world behavior, the definition covers the safety gate but says nothing about what gets synced (which entities, what time window), what the preview response contains, or how errors surface. The essentials for calling it safely are present; the essentials for predicting its effects are not.

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 67%: confirm and idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema, and the description only adds that adAccountId appears in the request path. It contributes little meaning beyond what the structured fields already provide.

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?

States a specific verb (sync) and resource (entities and metrics for an ad account) plus the underlying endpoint POST /v1/sync/{adAccountId}, which lets an agent separate it from adAccounts_get/list/manage. It does not, however, distinguish it from adjacent sync-style siblings such as audiences_sync or connections_importMetrics.

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 word 'now' implies an on-demand pull, and the confirm gate signals this is a deliberate write action, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over adAccounts_manage or the other sync tools. The agent must infer the usage context.

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