sync_network

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the async workflow behavior: immediate return with status and workflowId, potential multi-minute delays, and detailed pendingReason handling including 'outsideWorkingHours' parking. This goes far beyond a simple 'enable' and explains exactly what the agent should expect.

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 well-structured in three paragraphs: purpose/setup, async workflow mechanics, and pendingReason edge cases. Each sentence adds necessary operational detail, and the front-loaded opening gives immediate clarity. Length is justified by the complexity of the behavior.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description covers all critical aspects: what the tool does, how to invoke it, what the immediate response looks like, how to retrieve final results, how to avoid duplicate work, and how to handle special pending states. No obvious gaps remain.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by noting the tool is a one-time setup, though it doesn't need to explain parameter meanings since none exist.

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: 'Enable background network monitoring so connection events can be polled with get_network'. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and references the related poll tool, distinguishing it from siblings like sync_inbox or get_network itself.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Run once per account', 'only changes that happen after it is enabled are captured', and important exclusions like 'Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running; that creates duplicate queued work.' It also directs to get_workflow_result for completion, offering clear guidance on next steps.

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