sync_additional_sources

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing failure behavior (prior snapshots retained), data-handling semantics (curated web references preserved with real review date, not scraped), and an explicit safety boundary (never installs or runs projects). These are exactly the traits an agent needs for a network-touching sync/mutation operation and are not derivable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effect, each carrying distinct information (scope, failure retention, reference handling, safety limit). Dense but no sentence is filler.

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 mutating, open-world, no-output-schema tool, the description covers side effects, failure behavior, and safety boundaries, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only operational detail such as expected duration or auth/rate-limit considerations, which are minor gaps.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must carry the load. "One or all configured GitHub sources" maps the optional source_id to its semantics (empty = all, set = a single source) and pairs with the default "" value, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 (Refresh) and resource (configured GitHub sources) plus the side effect (rebuild search/catalog), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not name a sibling to disambiguate from the similarly named list_additional_sources, but the action verb makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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?

"Refresh one or all configured GitHub sources" implies the calling condition and the one-vs-all scope, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the trigger from context.

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