force_email_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action is a mutation (via [mutation]) and affects all accounts, but does not disclose important traits like whether the sync is asynchronous, if there are rate limits, or what side effects (e.g., high resource usage) may occur.

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 very short and includes a Spanish version which adds redundancy but still fits in one line. The [mutation] tag is helpful. It could be more streamlined without the duplicate language, but overall it is efficient.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return value, expected behavior (synchronous vs asynchronous), or prerequisites. It covers the basic action but leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying that all accounts are synced via IMAP, which provides context beyond the empty schema. However, with zero parameters, the bar for adding parameter semantics is low.

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 action ('force sync'), the resource ('all email accounts'), and the method ('via IMAP'). It marks as [mutation], distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_email_sync' (configuration) and 'get_email_accounts' (read).

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 implies use when an immediate sync is needed but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives like 'update_email_sync' are not mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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