sync_materials

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds real context beyond them: it clarifies the fetch is fresh (not cache-served), caps the default scope at 10 courses, and explicitly states files are not downloaded, which routes the agent away from download_material.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the two most decision-relevant constraints (scope cap, no file download) follow 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?

With no output schema, the description does describe what is produced (material list plus week structure) and covers the key scope and no-download caveats, so it is largely sufficient for a one-parameter tool. Gaps remain around what local state the sync updates (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and any error/rate behavior.

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% for the single courseId parameter, so the schema itself carries no semantics. The description partially compensates by explaining the omission behavior (up to 10 courses), but it does not clarify the accepted format (the positive-integer string pattern) or the effect of supplying a value.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair: it freshly re-fetches ('직접 새로 조회') the course-material list and week structure from the user's current enrollments. This 'fresh fetch' framing implicitly distinguishes it from cache reads like get_material_cache, but it never names a 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: '직접 새로 조회' suggests using this when fresh data is needed versus cached data, and the courseId-omission cap is given, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many material siblings.

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