calendar_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: it forces a sync, waits for completion, fetches new server events, uploads local changes, and verifies the sync start on Android's sync manager. It does not describe failure behavior, timeout outcomes, or what the response contains.

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?

Front-loads the core action and effect in the first two sentences, then details the method modes. Dense but each sentence adds operational information; the nested parenthetical about the fallback path is slightly hard to parse.

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?

For a three-parameter sync tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, method trade-offs, and verification. It falls short of fully complete because return values and failure/timeout handling are left unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning to the 'method' enum by explaining what auto, background, and ui actually do, beyond the schema's terse 'auto, background or ui.' The 'wait' and 'timeout' parameters are already explained in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Force a Calendar sync with Google') plus the waiting side effect. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling calendar_sync_background by noting that background mode is 'same as calendar.sync_background', so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the three method modes with when each is appropriate: auto tries the fast no-screen sync manager first and falls back to the app's Refresh, background is sync-manager only, and ui uses the drawer Refresh. It routes to the sibling for background mode but does not state when not to use this tool or any prerequisites.

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