Sync all orgs now

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the write target is an in-memory cache and 'nothing financial is written to disk', and the operation spans all orgs rather than one. It does not disclose whether the call blocks until completion or how long a full multi-org refetch takes, which would matter for a sync trigger.

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, zero filler. Scope and effect come first, the no-disk guarantee is parenthetical, and the poller cadence is appended as context rather than padding.

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?

With rich annotations and a fully described single parameter, the definition covers scope, side effects and the automatic-update alternative. The one remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what a sync call returns or whether it is synchronous, which an agent invoking a long-running org-wide refetch would want to know.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents as_of fully, including the YYYY-MM-DD pattern and the demo-mode default. The description's mention of 'reports' loosely corresponds to that date knob but adds no syntax or defaulting detail, 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?

States a specific verb ('Re-fetches') and enumerates the resources (invoices, bills, contacts, bank balances, reports) across an explicit scope ('every connected org'). No sibling tool performs a sync, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from list_orgs, overdue_invoices, or the connect_org_* tools.

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 sentence about the poller running automatically every XERO_AGG_SYNC_MINUTES gives the agent a clear reason to call this only when it needs data refreshed immediately rather than waiting. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not statement or naming an alternative data source, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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