sigma_sync_connection

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds behavioral context by using 'Force' and explaining the empty-list behavior for full sync, which implies a side-effectful operation. This is sufficient for a simple sync tool; no contradictions with 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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Force Sigma to re-index') and immediately provides the key parameter behavior. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, one required), the description covers the essential context for invocation. An output schema is present, so return values do not need to be described. Some details like the effect scope or whether null versus empty list differs could be added, but for this complexity level the description is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the most important parameter nuance: passing an empty list for `path` triggers a full sync. It does not explain `connection_id`, but that parameter is self-evident from the tool name and schema. The added meaning goes beyond the raw schema definition.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination, 'Force Sigma to re-index a warehouse path,' which clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sigma_test_connection or sigma_sync_all_tables_in_schema by focusing on re-indexing a specific warehouse path. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for forcing a re-index of a warehouse path. It also gives a key usage instruction: 'Pass empty list for full sync.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions compared to related sync tools, though this is not critical given the specific focus. Overall, the usage intent is clear.

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