trigger_db_sync

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context like partial sync being 'much faster' and auto-extraction via projectPath, but it does not explicitly disclose that this modifies the database schema or that full sync could be time-consuming. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial safety/side-effect information, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, then provides actionable guidance in an efficient, scannable manner. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to call it and how to parameterize it. It covers the main usage modes and the key automation feature. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but for an action tool that auto-detects most settings, this is acceptable.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the projectPath auto-extraction trick and when to use the tables parameter for partial sync, enhancing parameter understanding. This pushes the score above baseline.

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 'Run a D365FO database sync' and even names the executable 'SyncEngine.exe'. It also distinguishes internal modes (partial vs full sync), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from the many sibling tools that handle building, validation, or analysis.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use partial sync after adding/renaming fields or indexes on known tables' and 'Use full sync only when unsure what changed.' It also instructs on passing projectPath for auto-extraction. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools (e.g., build_d365fo_project), so the 'vs alternatives' criterion is only partially met.

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