bb_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses incremental behavior ('only new or changed files are fetched'), the on-disk output structure, and the asynchronous background execution model with a follow-up tool. It omits auth requirements, what happens on partial failure, and whether existing files are overwritten.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then behavioral note, then the async escape hatch. No filler; every clause adds information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers what is downloaded, where it lands, the incremental rule, and the async pattern with a named continuation tool. Missing only auth/error-case detail, which is minor for a two-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: `courses` is framed as the optional subset selector versus the default of all current courses, and `wait_seconds` is tied to the background-completion check. It still never says what form a course identifier takes (name, ID, code).

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 (Download) and resource (the PDFs: slides, readings, worksheets) plus the scope (every current course, or just the `courses` subset). The destination layout <download folder>/<course>/<week>/ further disambiguates it from the single-target bb_download sibling.

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?

Gives clear context: it is the bulk/whole-course fetch, and it explicitly routes the agent to bb_sync_status when the background job exceeds wait_seconds. It does not, however, contrast itself with bb_download or state prerequisites such as needing to be logged in via bb_login first.

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