notify_database_sync

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that calling the tool triggers a sync, but does not mention idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or whether the sync is immediate. The description gives basic behavioral info but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words. Each sentence adds distinct information: first states what it does, second when it's used. Perfectly concise.

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 the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details about the synchronous parameter (effect of true/false), the table_name parameter (when to use), and return behavior (likely a success response). The description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.

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%, meaning the tool description adds no value beyond the input schema. The description does not explain the purpose of any parameter (id, table_name, synchronous). With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set parameters.

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 purpose: 'Notify Metabase that a database has changed and trigger a sync by database ID.' It specifies the verb (notify/trigger), resource (database sync), and mechanism (by database ID). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'notify_database_sync_by_name' and 'notify_new_database_table' by emphasizing the ID parameter.

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 context: 'Used by external systems to signal that a DB schema or data has changed.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sync_database' or 'notify_database_sync_by_name') or when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied but not precise.

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