sync_start

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden, and it excels: it discloses async behavior (returns jobId immediately), side effects (ingests new/changed files, skips identical, removes vanished), retention policy (only latest job kept, restart discards), and concurrency rules (only one sync, others fail). No contradictory annotations.

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?

Although longer than typical, each paragraph addresses a distinct aspect: purpose, async/behavior, and concurrency. No redundant statements—all information is operationally relevant, making the length justified.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return type, failure modes, concurrency, and side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and know what to expect.

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's only parameter 'path' has zero description coverage; the description compensates by explaining that it refers to 'document roots (or one path inside them)', clarifying the default null means syncing all roots and a string restricts to a subpath. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't provide format specifics like absolute vs relative paths.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Reconcile' and clearly identifies the resource (index/document roots). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sync_status and ingest_file by explaining what sync_start does (full or partial reindex) versus polling status. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs to poll sync_status for the job result, and warns that a sync already in progress will cause immediate failure with an identifying message. It also notes that single-file ingests and queries are never blocked, implying they can be used concurrently. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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