trigger_db_sync

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context about partial vs. full sync speed and auto-extraction from .rnrproj. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not detail potential side effects or prerequisites for the sync operation, so it doesn't fully reach the highest bar.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place by providing distinct guidance. No waste or redundancy.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, a rich schema, and no output schema, the description provides solid context for invoking the tool. It explains the partial/full distinction and projectPath usage. A short mention of expected output (e.g., sync log or status) would make it fully complete, but it is not necessary for selection and invocation.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The main description reinforces the projectPath auto-extraction behavior but adds minimal new information beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool 'Run a D365FO database sync (SyncEngine.exe)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between partial and full sync modes, which is unique among sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 guidance: 'Use partial sync after adding/renaming fields or indexes on known tables' and 'Use full sync only when unsure what changed.' It also explains how to leverage projectPath for smart partial sync. This is actionable and covers both when and when not to use the tool.

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