repair_sync

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

The description discloses an important side effect: 'Rebuilds sync bookkeeping without modifying budget data.' This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying what gets changed and what does not. The annotations already provide idempotency and read-only/write context, so the additional detail is sufficient.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is given immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the side-effect boundary. The annotations cover idempotency, and nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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, so there is no parameter semantics burden. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter details; the context provided is adequate.

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 verb ('Repair') and resource ('the budget's sync state'), and specifies the trigger condition ('when operations fail with an out-of-sync error'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_bank_sync and reconcile_currency_residual.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when other tools report that the budget is out of sync.' It clearly states when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare against alternatives.

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