set_connected_project_sync_mode

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

Annotations are all-false and carry no behavioral detail, so the description takes the burden. It discloses side-effect semantics per mode, the Supabase prerequisite for AUTOMATIC, and adds a mandatory user-confirmation step ('Confirm the new mode with the user before calling this tool') — real guidance beyond any structured field.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action, followed by a compact de facto enum glossary and a single highlighted warning. Nothing is redundant; the mode explanations earn their place because the schema's syncMode description is so thin.

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 an output schema covers return values, the description needs only semantics and preconditions, and it supplies both: the Supabase-backend constraint, the push/trigger semantics per mode, and the user-confirmation requirement. Minor gaps like permission requirements and reversibility are acceptable for a 2-param enum-setting tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further: syncMode in the schema is only 'New continuous-sync mode,' while the description defines what each of the four enum values actually does. The uuid id is simple and needs no elaboration.

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 opening clause 'Change a connected project's continuous-sync mode' is a specific verb+resource statement. The four mode definitions (AUTOMATIC/MANUAL/PAUSED/ARCHIVED) with their exact behaviors distinguish this from sync-related siblings like trigger_sync and get_connected_project.

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 explains when each mode applies and states a precondition: AUTOMATIC requires a Supabase backend. It references trigger_sync by name in the MANUAL definition, connecting this configuration tool to its execution counterpart, though it stops short of explicit 'use X instead' exclusions.

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