update_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe what happens when fields are updated (e.g., whether changes are immediate, reversible, or require validation). It also doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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: the first states what the tool does, and the parameter list documents inputs. However, the parameter explanations could be more concise (e.g., 'Optional JSON array of field mappings' is wordy for each optional field).

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 complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling) and usage context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address mutation-specific concerns like permissions or idempotency.

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 lists all 9 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'id: The sync ID to update'), but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional context. The parameter explanations are minimal—they identify what each parameter represents but don't explain format constraints (e.g., what valid 'mode' values are, JSON structure for 'fields'), so the description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 sync in Polytomic.' This is a specific verb ('Update') with a resource ('sync'), though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_bulk_sync' or 'update_model' which have similar update patterns. The description avoids tautology by explaining what the tool does rather than just restating the name.

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 like 'update_bulk_sync' or 'create_sync'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing sync ID) or context for when updates are appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the parameter list alone.

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