trigger_sync

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by explaining the sync behavior: it detects changes (migrations, edge functions, frontend) and applies them to specific targets (Supabase instance and deployment target). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of what the operation entails.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is stated first, followed by a concise explanation of what the sync detects and where it applies changes. Every word 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, one required), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the purpose, the detection scope, and the targets. It does not cover when to use vs alternatives, but that is addressed in usage guidelines. The return format is presumably covered by the output schema, so nothing critical 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%, so both parameters (id and commitSha) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Trigger a manual sync') and the resource ('a connected project'), and explains what the sync does (detects changes and applies them). It is specific and not a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling sync tools like retry_sync_run or get_sync_run, but the manual sync purpose is evident enough.

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 when to use it (when you want to manually sync changes) and mentions the prerequisite of a connected project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as retry_sync_run for failed runs or automatic sync modes. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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