Fix out-of-sync errors by rebuilding sync bookkeeping without altering budget data. Use when sync operations report the budget is out of sync.
Repair the budget's sync state when operations fail with an out-of-sync error. Rebuilds sync bookkeeping without modifying budget data. Use this when other tools report that the budget is out of sync.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it rebuilds sync bookkeeping without modifying budget data, which is a key safety guarantee. It does not cover failure modes or side effects, but the added constraint justifies above-baseline scoring.
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 only three sentences and front-loads the purpose. However, the first and third sentences both express the same when-to-use condition, making the third redundant. A tighter two-sentence version would eliminate the repetition.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and mutation, the description provides the essential purpose and side-effect guarantee. It is complete for calling the tool correctly; minor omissions like behavior when already in sync are not critical.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to explain, the description cannot add parameter meaning; the baseline 4 applies.
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 states a specific action ('Repair the budget's sync state') and resource (sync bookkeeping), and explicitly notes it does not modify budget data. This differentiates it from write tools and from run_bank_sync, even without naming siblings.
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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when other tools report that the budget is out of sync.' It does not name alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but the context is clear and sufficient to select the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.