trigger_syndication

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool's intelligent behavior ('detects which platforms are out of date and updates only what's stale') and the default behavior when platforms parameter is omitted ('syncs all stale platforms'). While annotations cover read/write and destructive hints, the description provides operational details about selective updating and stale detection that aren't captured in structured fields.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (the core functionality) is front-loaded.

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 (mutation operation with intelligent behavior), good annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral aspects. The main gap is the lack of output information (no output schema and no description of return values), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining the default behavior when the 'platforms' parameter is omitted ('If omitted, syncs all stale platforms'), which adds semantic context beyond the schema's technical description. However, it doesn't provide additional format examples or constraints beyond what's in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('pushes', 'detects', 'updates') and resources ('latest intelligence', 'CRM', 'platforms'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on syndication/updating rather than retrieval or analysis, and explicitly mentions a specific sibling (get_syndication_status) for differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use get_syndication_status first to see what needs updating.' This clearly indicates a prerequisite workflow and distinguishes it from the sibling tool for checking status before performing updates.

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