resync_connection

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses write nature, triggers full historical sync, handles paused connections (schedules), and describes conflict handling (HTTP 409). It does not cover authentication or rate limits but covers key behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a warning emoji and clear bullet-like points. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds useful information. Could be tightened slightly.

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 3 required params and no output schema, the description covers essential contexts: confirmation requirement, behavior when connection is paused or sync in progress, and error scenario. It lacks return value details but no output schema exists.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description for schema_file adds important context (must read the schema file first), and request_body references the schema. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 defines the tool as a WRITE OPERATION that triggers a full historical sync of a connection or specific tables. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sync_connection and resync_tables by specifying 'full historical sync' and handling paused/sync-in-progress states.

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 advises confirming with the user before calling and explains behavior under paused or in-progress sync conditions. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., when to use resync_connection vs resync_tables or sync_connection), which would improve score.

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