Re-sync a knowledge source

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses asynchronous behavior ('returns as soon as the job is queued', new suggestions appear on a later read), the required scopes (knowledge:write, luca:queue_ops), the Idempotency-Key requirement and its auto-generation fallback, and the workspace override semantics. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by async-return semantics and then operation/scope/idempotency/workspace facts. Slightly boilerplate in the scope and data-sensitivity lines, but nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still covers auth scopes, idempotency, workspace resolution, and async completion. The one unexplained point is why the destructiveHint=true annotation applies to what reads as a benign re-read, which an agent might want clarified.

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 75%, so the baseline is a 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that idempotencyKey is required for safe retries and will be server-generated if omitted, and that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default. Only the required 'id' parameter is left implicit, which is self-evident as the source UUID.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Queue a re-read of one knowledge source') and states the scope ('now rather than waiting for its next scheduled sync'). An agent can distinguish this immediately from siblings like luca_knowledge_sources_list and luca_knowledge_sources_disconnect.

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 clearly frames the situation that selects this tool — you want a re-read now instead of waiting for the scheduled sync. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative tool or state any when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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