Sync cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that this writes to a local cache and that full:true re-fetches history, implying a heavier operation. It does not say whether local data is replaced or lost, how long a full sync takes, or whether concurrent reads are affected — meaningful gaps for an unannotated mutating 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then timing, then the parameter caveat. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the essentials — what it does, when to run it, and what the flag changes — are all present. Only the side effects on existing cached data are left unstated.

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% and the single param is already described as "Re-fetch everything from scratch." The description's "full:true re-fetches the entire history" adds no meaning beyond that wording, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: pulling ZenMoney data into the local cache. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are query/analysis operations rather than a cache-priming sync, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Run this before auditing if the data may be stale" gives a concrete trigger condition tied to downstream work. It offers clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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