usp_sync

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a background sync and that polling is needed. However, it does not detail side effects, overwrite behavior, partial failure handling, or authorization requirements, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise sentences: first states action, second gives defaults and follow-up. Front-loaded with critical information, no unnecessary words.

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 that an output schema exists (context says true), return values are covered. The description adequately covers the async nature and polling requirement. Missing explanation of semester_id parameter, but overall sufficient for a background sync tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the sources parameter with its default and enum values but does not mention semester_id at all. Partial compensation.

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 verb 'start' and the resource 'background sync pulling data from USP systems into the planner'. It distinguishes from siblings like usp_sync_status (for polling) and usp_sync_history (for history).

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?

Provides clear guidance: defaults to all sources, returns a sync run that requires polling usp_sync_status. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the polling instruction is helpful and implicit differentiation from siblings.

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