supportpages_sync

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: it preserves local content and upload baselines, clarifies missing walkthroughs are 'unavailable, not confirmed deletion tombstones,' and forbids automatic recreation of deleted resources. This meaningfully fills in the mutation and safety behavior.

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?

Four tight sentences front-load the main action and every clause carries information (scope, preservation, tombstone semantics, conflict handling). Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the behavioral subtleties of a sync/destructive-adjacent operation well. The main gap is the undocumented workspace parameter and the absence of routing guidance relative to siblings.

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 lone 'workspace' parameter is undocumented. The description never mentions the workspace selector, so it does not compensate for the schema gap on the only input the agent must reason about.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Refresh remote project settings, articles and video walkthroughs,' and enumerates the scope (remote-only resources, publication/sharing, review links). It clearly conveys a sync/refresh operation, though it does not name any sibling tool it should be chosen over.

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 only implied ('Refresh...') and the closing guidance ('Review conflicts in the editor; never recreate deleted resources automatically') is procedural rather than a when-to-use/when-not statement. No alternative tool or triggering condition (e.g., vs supportpages_status or supportpages_init) is named.

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