Refresh Roku docs

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that the download is skipped if the upstream branch hasn't moved, that force:true overrides this, and that a summary of changes is returned. This complements the idempotentHint and explains the mutation mechanism without contradicting any annotations.

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 tight, high-signal sentences, with the core action and the key exception front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with one optional parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action, the conditional skip behavior, the override flag, and the return value. The sibling context confirms its role in the doc tool set, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already explains force clearly. The description adds only a slight rephrasing ('re-index regardless'), so it does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Re-sync'), resource ('local index'), and upstream source ('rokudev/dev-doc@v2.0'). This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only siblings search_roku_docs, get_roku_doc, and list_roku_docs.

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 description implies the use case: run this when you need to re-sync the local index from the upstream repo. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling tools or mention any preconditions like network access or repository availability.

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