classdojo_preview_skill_syncPreview skill changes by comparing a preset, source class, or inline rules against target classes before applying. Identify mismatches, confirm affected classes, and avoid unintended updates.
Compares a preset, source class, or inline rule list with target classes before any skill is changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rulesSource | Yes | ||
| targetClassNames | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is structured. The description reinforces the non-mutating behavior ('before any skill is changed') but doesn't add further behavioral detail such as output format or prerequisites.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the core action and resource are stated immediately.
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 read-only preview tool, the description states the input categories, the action, and the timing relative to mutation. It could mention what the preview returns, but with readOnlyHint and a simple compare action, the core invocation context is present.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping rulesSource to 'preset, source class, or inline rule list' and targetClassNames to 'target classes.' It doesn't detail the discriminator or ID format, but those are visible in 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Compares') and names the exact subject matter: a preset, source class, or inline rule list versus target classes. The phrase 'before any skill is changed' and the tool's name clearly separate it from apply/verify siblings.
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 'before any skill is changed' clause signals this is a pre-check or dry-run, positioning it before classdojo_apply_skill_sync. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage window is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.