sync_connection

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the operation as a write (⚠️), requires user confirmation, explains its role for manual syncs and rescheduled state, and links to documentation for details.

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 paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the critical warning, then concisely states action, effects, and links to further info.

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?

Despite lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and parameter hints. It includes a link for full walkthrough, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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% so schema describes each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the schema_file parameter as a confirmation path and directing to the schema file for request_body structure, enhancing clarity beyond the schema.

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 triggers a data sync for an existing Fivetran connection, specifying it is a write operation and not waiting for scheduled sync. It distinguishes from standard sync frequency and explains behavior for manual schedule_type.

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 explicitly warns to confirm with user before calling, explains when to use (immediate sync, manual schedule), and clarifies it doesn't override dashboard frequency. It lacks direct mention of alternative sibling tools like resync_connection, but provides sufficient context for typical use.

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