classdojo_apply_skill_syncApply a confirmed skill sync by replacing target skills only after explicit confirmation, then verify results by reading every class back.
Exactly replaces target skills only after explicit confirmation, then reads every class back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | ||
| previewId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already flag destructiveHint, but the description adds precise behavioral context: the operation is an exact replacement, it is gated on explicit confirmation, and it performs a read-back of every class afterward. This goes well beyond the structured hints and does not contradict them.
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?
One dense sentence delivers action, precondition, and postcondition with no filler. The destructive nature is front-loaded before the read-back detail.
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 two-parameter tool, the definition captures what is replaced, when it is allowed, and the follow-up read. It does not explicitly describe the return value or specify that previewId comes from classdojo_preview_skill_sync, though sibling names and the title make this discoverable.
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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It reinforces confirm's semantics with 'explicit confirmation', but it never names previewId or states that it must come from a prior preview — that is only in the title and tool name. Partial compensation only.
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 concrete action — exactly replacing target skills — plus a postcondition ('reads every class back'). This clearly identifies it as the commit/apply step and distinguishes it from classdojo_preview_skill_sync and classdojo_verify_skill_sync.
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 conveys the necessary use conditions: a previously previewed sync and explicit confirmation before any replacement. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.