Start a detached data sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so thoroughly: it is write-only, detached, non-blocking, lock-guarded against concurrent runs, returns a handle and log file, and implies side effects. This is unusually transparent for a mutation tool.

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?

Four dense sentences, no filler, with the most important behavior ('write-only', 'detached', 'returns immediately') front-loaded. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers workflow, concurrency, return artifacts, and the prerequisite data source, but the absence of parameter guidance for three of the four parameters leaves the tool incomplete for correct invocation. Given no output schema, the return-value mention helps, but the parameter gap prevents a higher score.

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 only clarifies athleteId's provenance ('from list_athletes') and says nothing about from, refresh, or provider, leaving their meaning and interactions unexplained. For a 4-parameter tool, this is a material gap.

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 verb ('spawns'), the resource ('detached catence-data sync process'), and the immediate return behavior ('run handle and log file'), which clearly differentiates this from the sibling progress-tracking tool. The 'write-only sync trigger' framing also signals its role among the write 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 description gives concrete usage context: it refuses when another sync is active, never waits for completion, should be tracked via catence_sync_progress, and requires athleteId from list_athletes. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus every alternative, but the key routing decisions are covered.

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