ako_sync_force

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds concrete consequences: brief traffic disruption, a preview-only mode unless confirmed=true, and a one-line result. It does not contradict annotations and adds safety-relevant behavior beyond the flags.

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 and front-loaded: core action first, then result type, usage trigger, safety warning, and required confirmation. Every sentence contributes either use-case guidance or a behavioral warning.

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 destructive resync tool with annotations, a rich confirmed parameter description, and an output schema, this definition gives all essential context: what it does, when to use it, what to run first, and the safety gate. No necessary operational detail is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the confirmed parameter already explains the default preview behavior and the restart/rebuild consequence. The tool description reinforces the confirmed requirement but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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 opens with '[WRITE] Force AKO to resync all K8s resources with the AVI Controller', naming a specific verb, resource, and effect. It also positions the tool against siblings by referencing ako_sync_diff and ako_sync_status, so an agent can tell it apart.

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?

It explicitly says to use when drift is detected, warns of brief traffic disruption, and instructs running ako_sync_diff first to inspect out-of-sync state. It also states the safety gate: confirmed=true is required, and without it only a preview is returned.

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