Sync Live Source Permissions

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent mutation. The description adds the 're-check' example, implying verification, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool modifies the live source or only updates internal permission records. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence with an illustrative example. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, this is a minimal viable description. It lacks differentiation from the broader lyzr_livesource_sync sibling and does not mention expected outcomes or prerequisites, though annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 fully describes both parameters (rag_id and live_source_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sync') with a specific resource ('access permissions for a live source') and a concrete example ('re-check SharePoint ACLs'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like lyzr_livesource_sync, which likely handles broader synchronization.

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 example 're-check SharePoint ACLs' provides clear context for when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, though it is reasonably clear this is for permission-specific sync.

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