source_sync_drive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires user confirmation (via 'confirm=True'), which is a key behavioral trait for safety. However, it lacks details on what 'sync' does (e.g., overwrites, merges, side effects), rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise usage guidelines and parameter explanations in a structured format. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides prerequisites, and the args clarify parameters. No wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description compensates well by explaining parameters and usage context. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It covers key aspects like prerequisites and confirmation, but could be more complete by detailing sync behavior or error cases for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'source_ids' as 'Source UUIDs to sync' and 'confirm' as 'Must be True after user approval', adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. This covers both parameters adequately, though it could detail format for UUIDs or confirmation implications more.

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 verb ('Sync') and resource ('Drive sources'), specifying the action of updating content. It distinguishes from sibling 'source_list_drive' by mentioning it as a prerequisite, though not all siblings are directly differentiated. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about what 'sync' entails operationally.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states to call 'source_list_drive first to identify stale sources' and requires 'confirm=True after user approval'. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (after identifying stale sources and with user confirmation) and implies alternatives by referencing the sibling tool for preparation.

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