run_bank_sync

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a mutating action. The description adds provider names and scope, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the sync is asynchronous, how conflicts are handled, or if it can be safely rerun. It adds some context beyond annotations but not comprehensive behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the provider names are integrated naturally. It is concise yet informative, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the read/write nature, the description is mostly adequate. However, it misses guidance on when to use this vs repair_sync, and it does not hint at any return values or side effects (e.g., whether it updates local data). Given the existence of repair_sync, the agent may need better differentiation.

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 schema has a single parameter 'account' with full description coverage (100%), including behavior when omitted. The description repeats this same information ('Syncs a specific account or all linked accounts if none specified'). Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description adds no additional semantic value, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 ('Sync'), resource ('bank transactions from linked accounts'), and the providers (GoCardless/SimpleFIN). It also clarifies the scope: a specific account or all linked accounts. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like repair_sync, which is about fixing sync issues.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Syncs...') but offers no explicit guidance on when *not* to use it or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention repair_sync for fixing sync problems or list_accounts for finding account IDs. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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