Perform a manual incremental sync of locally approved Moodle courses to download new or updated lecture files while preserving older versions. Set forceContentCheck to bypass ETag validation.
Perform one manual incremental sync for the locally approved courses. forceContentCheck bypasses ETag validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forceContentCheck | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the sync is incremental (not full), is manual/one-shot, and operates on locally approved courses. The ETag bypass detail is the kind of hidden behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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, single-boolean tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring safety and idempotency, the description covers the essentials: what runs, on what scope, and what the flag does. Only the default behavior of forceContentCheck and any result semantics are unstated.
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 0% and the single boolean parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. 'forceContentCheck bypasses ETag validation' fully explains the parameter's effect, which is the key semantic an agent needs. It does not state the default when omitted, keeping it short of a 5.
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 ('sync') and resource ('courses'), scoped to 'locally approved courses' with 'one manual incremental sync'. This distinguishes it from list/select siblings by making clear it performs an actual sync rather than a listing or selection, though it never explicitly names the alternatives.
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 phrase 'Perform one manual incremental sync' implies this is an on-demand trigger rather than a scheduled/automatic sync, which gives some usage context. However, it does not say when an agent should invoke it versus check_connection, get_sync_settings, or confirm_setup, nor any prerequisite state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.