run_sync_rule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but description adds critical behavioral context: it performs a full reconcile that backfills the target, and returns counts of created/updated/deleted events and per-event errors. This explains side effects and return payload, which annotations don't provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and parenthetical detail, followed by return values. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with a single parameter and a straightforward trigger action, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and return values. It also has an output schema and annotations, so return format is structurally defined. It lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., what happens if rule is already running), but overall is sufficient.

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% (no description for rule_id). The description does not explicitly describe rule_id but the tool name and action ('Run a sync rule') make it obvious that rule_id identifies which sync rule to run. Since there's only one self-explanatory parameter, the description adequately compensates.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Run a sync rule now (a full reconcile that backfills the target from the source).' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('sync rule'), and the parenthetical clarifies the mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sync_rule, delete_sync_rule, and list_sync_rules.

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 implies immediate execution ('Run a sync rule now') versus scheduled or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as 'use list_sync_rules to see rules' or 'only run when you need to force a refresh.' The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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