resync_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose return behavior (compact confirmation by default, verbose option) and scope limitation, but lacks details on potential side effects, permissions required, or whether this is a long-running operation. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description clearly explains the operation's scope and return behavior. It lacks some context on execution time, error scenarios, or data impact, but remains sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds slight reinforcement by mentioning 'verbose=true for full response' and referencing 'tables', but does not introduce significant new meaning 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Force a historical resync') and the resource ('specific tables within a connection'). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that only the specified tables are re-synced, not the entire connection, which differentiates it from tools like trigger_sync.

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 clear context on scope ('Only re-syncs the specified tables, not the entire connection') and implies when to choose this tool over a full-sync alternative. It does not explicitly name the alternative but offers de facto guidance on exclusions.

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