resync_table_fields

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action. It does not explain what rescanning entails (e.g., triggers a sync, overwrites cached values, potential side effects on queries, or required permissions). This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the impact.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient but arguably too brief. It contains no redundant words, fitting within the 10% weight for conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of ambiguous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, confirmation of completion, or how the tool fits into the workflow, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full role.

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 one parameter (id) with description 'Table ID', and the tool description adds no further semantics. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by explaining how to obtain the ID or what the parameter represents, but it does not.

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 that the tool rescans field values for a table in Metabase. The verb 'rescan' is specific and contrasts with sibling tools like 'rescan_database_values' and 'rescan_field_values' at different granularity levels. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 'rescan_field_values', which operates on individual fields, so clarity is slightly diminished.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rescan_database_values' or 'rescan_field_values'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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