Sync App Store Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates remote state without being destructive. The description adds useful specifics beyond that — the action runs remotely on a target node and optionally cascades an X-Pack child-node refresh — but says nothing about whether the call blocks or returns immediately, idempotency, or failure modes for an offline node.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, the optional cascade, and the resulting benefit with no filler. The parenthetical is dense but earns its place by covering the second parameter's effect.

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 zero-required-parameter, two-property tool with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers intent and side effects adequately. The remaining gap is sync semantics — asynchronous vs blocking, and what the agent should do (e.g. poll list_app_versions) to confirm completion — which matters for a trigger-style operation with no output schema.

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 both properties are well documented in the schema, including the nodeId pattern and the list_nodes source, so baseline 3 applies. The description only reinforces intent ('selected node', 'optionally refresh X-Pack child-node app update status') without adding format or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trigger remote App Store catalog synchronization') plus the outcome it produces ('newly published app versions become visible') and its scope ('on the selected node'). It is clearly a state-changing sync action, distinguishable from list/get siblings like list_app_versions or get_app_update_versions, though it names no sibling explicitly.

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 goal clause 'so newly published app versions become visible' implies the use case (after publishing a new version, before it appears), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites such as needing a reachable node.

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