sync_start

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: asynchronous execution (returns jobId without waiting), single-job constraint, and job loss on server exit. It also notes that index entries are removed for missing files, making side effects transparent.

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 description is three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the return value and polling, and the third adds a critical lifecycle constraint. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully captures the tool's behavior, return format, and lifecycle. It also refers to sync_status for progress, completing the operational picture.

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 input schema has a 100% coverage description for the 'path' parameter, explaining its optionality, scope, and behavior. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Reconcile the index with the files on disk' and enumerates specific behaviors (ingest new/changed, leave unchanged, remove gone entries). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ingest_file or delete_file, which handle single files.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (reconciling an index with disk state) and implicitly contrasts with sync_status for polling. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements or alternative tool names, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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