mail_sync_now

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions incremental vs full modes, giving some transparency into behavior. However, it doesn't state whether sync is destructive, whether it can run concurrently, rate limits, or what happens to pending changes. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but could describe more.

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?

A single, dense sentence with zero filler. Every word adds value, capturing the incremental/full distinction in 8 words. Ideal conciseness.

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 its position among mail_sync_initial, mail_sync_all, and mail_sync_status siblings, this description could better explain where it fits in the sync lifecycle. With an output schema present and simple parameters, the description is near-adequate but misses the opportunity to clarify how 'now' differs from 'initial' and 'all'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining the 'full' parameter as 'force a full reconciliation,' which adds meaning to the otherwise bare boolean. However, the account_id parameter is not explained beyond the schema's title 'Account Id,' which is self-explanatory. The description adds value for 'full' but not for account_id.

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 ('Run') and resource (mail sync), and distinguishes between incremental sync vs full reconciliation. It distinguishes reasonably from the sibling tools mail_sync_initial and mail_sync_all, though it doesn't explicitly call out the differences.

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 usage via the 'incremental vs full' contrast, and the existence of mail_sync_initial and mail_sync_all siblings suggests differentiation, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The agent must infer the distinction between this and the sibling sync tools.

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