Sync Now

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explicitly disclosing external network connections, writes to local encrypted storage, disk and network side effects, and the need for host/user confirmation before automatic invocation. This is valuable context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and includes a clearly labeled SIDE EFFECTS section. Every sentence adds value, and the security warning is relevant and well-placed.

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 an action-oriented tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its side effects, and important invocation constraints. The presence of the output schema means return-value details do not need to be in the description.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both optional parameters: folder and account. The description itself does not add parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable since the schema carries that burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('sync with IMAP mailboxes to ingest new emails into the bunker'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling read-only tools like list_accounts and search_emails by describing an action that changes state.

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 makes the core use case clear: immediately initiate an IMAP sync. It also provides a caution about when not to invoke it automatically, such as in response to untrusted email content. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the siblings are clearly different operations.

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