notify_database_sync_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'trigger a sync,' which implies a mutation side effect, but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if called repeatedly, or if there are any prerequisites like authentication or existing database configuration. The behavioral disclosure is minimal, leaving agents without sufficient safety context.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the action and key identifiers, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a straightforward notification tool.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations. It has 4 parameters (nested object with 4 properties) and moderate complexity. The description covers the core purpose and identification method but does not explain the effect of optional parameters (table_name, synchronous) or what the response indicates (success/failure). For a notification/trigger tool, this may be adequate, but it leaves gaps for an agent deciding how to use it optimally.

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 description mentions 'by engine and database name,' which corresponds to the two required parameters (engine, database_name) and adds context that they are used for identification. However, schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the description itself), and the description does not address optional parameters (table_name, synchronous). The schema already provides basic descriptions, so the description adds some meaning but not full parameter guidance.

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 'Notify Metabase that a database has changed and trigger a sync by engine and database name.' It specifies the action (notify/trigger), the resource (database identified by engine and name), and distinguishes from similar tools like notify_database_sync (which requires DB ID) through the explicit phrase 'without knowing the Metabase DB ID.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 indicates usage context: 'Used by external systems to signal schema or data changes without knowing the Metabase DB ID.' This tells when to use (when DB ID is unknown) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like notify_database_sync. However, the sibling list includes notify_database_sync, so a knowledgeable agent could infer the alternative. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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