ako_sync_force

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by stating it's a WRITE operation and may cause traffic disruption. It adds transparency about the preview behavior when confirmed=False. It does not cover all side effects (e.g., rollback), but annotations already carry the destructive hint, so the description provides valuable context beyond that.

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 concise: a single-line summary, two lines for usage and safety, and a structured Args section. Each sentence is essential, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, safety, and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Missing details about synchronous/asynchronous execution or specific failure modes, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains that 'context' is an optional K8s context name, and 'confirmed' must be True to execute (default False returns a preview). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 AKO to resync all K8s resources with AVI Controller." It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ako_sync_diff (diff) and ako_status (status). The "[WRITE]" prefix also clarifies the operation type.

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 explicitly says "Use when drift is detected" and warns about "brief traffic disruption." It also explains the safety requirement with confirmed=True. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, which would make it more comprehensive.

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