sync_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses side effects (upsert into local store), a required API key, input constraints (`since` format), and CSV source layout. It leaves ambiguity around `source` in API mode and omits return/error behavior, but it covers the most operationally important behaviors.

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 primary purpose and then adds method-specific details in compact lines. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. The only minor inefficiency is the slightly vague 'active ingestion adapter' phrase, which could be replaced with a more concrete term.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and is flanked by query tools, this description covers the essential invocation details: method choice, source layout, API key requirement, and date filtering. It lacks return/error behavior and clarification of `source` in API mode, but the core usage context is present.

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 the meaning of `method` by enumerating 'csv' and 'api' behaviors, details the `source` directory contents for CSV, and specifies the `since` date format. It does not clarify what `source` means for the API method, but otherwise provides substantial parameter context.

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 ('Pull latest data via the active ingestion adapter and upsert into the local store'), identifying both the operation (pull/upsert) and the resource (local store). This clearly differentiates sync_data from the sibling query and analysis tools, which focus on reading/presenting data rather than ingesting it.

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?

It provides explicit method selection guidance: method='csv' defines the source directory and expected filenames, while method='api' pulls from the real SideShift API and requires SIDESHIFT_API_KEY. It also explains the `since` date filter. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare against alternatives, but the method-specific instructions give clear context.

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