update_bulk_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a bulk sync, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the update entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words. However, the parameter explanations are minimal and could be more informative, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage it to explain return values or outcomes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional new name'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide details on format (e.g., what JSON structure 'schedule' expects) or constraints, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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: 'Update an existing bulk sync in Polytomic.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('bulk sync'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_sync' or 'update_bulk_sync_schemas', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing bulk sync ID), compare it to sibling tools like 'create_bulk_sync' or 'update_sync', or specify use cases. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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