ako_sync_force

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds [WRITE], 'May cause brief traffic disruption', and the confirmed parameter safety mechanism. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 with a clear structure: purpose, usage caution, safety note, and argument descriptions. It is well-organized without unnecessary details.

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 write tool with only 2 parameters (none required) and an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, usage scenario, safety, parameter semantics, and side effects. It is complete for the given context.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'context' as optional K8s context name, and 'confirmed' with default false for preview and true for execution. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Force resync' and the resources 'AKO' and 'AVI Controller', with a [WRITE] prefix. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like ako_sync_status and ako_sync_diff, which are read or check tools.

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 specifies 'Use when drift is detected' and includes a caution about traffic disruption. It also explains the safety mechanism requiring confirmed=True. While it doesn't explicitly exclude use cases, the context of siblings and the safety measure provide good guidance.

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