sigma_sync_all_tables_in_schema

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'become visible in Sigma' provides some behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as long-running operation, whether it alters existing metadata, or if it is asynchronous. Minimal extra value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations provide basic safety hints, the description is minimally complete. However, for a bulk operation like syncing all tables, it could benefit from explaining whether it is one-time or recurring, potential performance implications, or prerequisites. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter understanding. It only implies that database and schema refer to the warehouse location, and connection_id is the connection, but it does not explain each parameter individually or provide any detail about value formats. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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: syncing all tables in a warehouse schema to make them visible in Sigma. The verb 'sync' and resource 'all tables in a warehouse schema' are specific, and this distinguishes it from siblings like sigma_sync_connection which handles connection-level syncing.

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 when to use the tool (to make tables visible in Sigma) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios like after adding new tables vs. initial setup. There are no exclusions or guidance on when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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