Sync Exam Schedules

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it writes to a separate exam DB and, critically, discloses graceful degradation ('pdftotext가 없으면 문서만 저장하고 파싱 실패를 partial_failures에 남깁니다'). It omits auth requirements and rate/network failure handling, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the fallback behavior is appended. It is compact and appropriately sized, though the bracketed [네트워크] prefix is minor overhead.

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 5-param network sync with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and the notable fallback path (partial_failures), so return values need not be spelled out. What is missing is when this should run relative to the get_exam_schedule sibling and any permission prerequisites.

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 the schema already documents term formats, force, exam_type enum, course_id and source_url. The description references the term and midterm/final concept but adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a precise verb chain (탐색 → 다운로드/정규화 → 별도 시험 DB에 저장) and a concrete resource (중간/기말시험 공지 PDF 시간표). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling eclass_get_exam_schedule (read/retrieve) because it explicitly describes syncing and persisting to a separate DB.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('지정한 학기의 시험 공지'), which suggests running before retrieval, but it never names when to use it versus eclass_get_exam_schedule or eclass_list_exam_sources, and states no prerequisites or exclusions. The [네트워크] tag hints at network requirements but is not framed as a gating condition.

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