company_kb_sync

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose safety and side effects. It states the synchronization and index update but does not explain whether the operation modifies/overwrites local data, what 'force' does, what happens to unchanged docs, network/availability requirements, or failure modes. This is a mutation-like operation with no behavioral safeguards disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by useful invocation context. No filler. Slightly too sparse to cover parameter guidance, but as a structure 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?

With three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and only a brief usage note, the description is not complete enough to invoke the tool correctly in non-default cases. It provides the 'when' but not the 'how to configure' information; the output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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% and the description contains no mention of force, scope, or project. The agent must infer the meaning of these parameters from their names/defaults alone, which is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 ('Synchronize') and resource ('repositories that have already been added to the local RAG cache') and mentions updating the Markdown index. It clearly differentiates from normal search by calling itself a full sync, but does not explicitly distinguish from the similar sibling company_kb_sync_repository.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before answering when the user asks for fresh docs'. It also explains that 'normal search does not require a full sync', helping the agent avoid unnecessary calls. Does not name company_kb_sync_repository or other alternatives explicitly.

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