Sync tool connection installs

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, implying a safe write operation. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and HTTP method, but fails to disclose whether the PUT replaces or appends installs, or any other behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 short but inefficient: the first line repeats the title verbatim, and the remaining lines provide only endpoint and auth class. No structured breakdown of behavior, parameters, or examples. Every sentence should add value, but the repetition wastes space.

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 complexity (2 required parameters, nested arrays, output schema), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the effect of the operation, the meaning of the parameters, or any edge cases. With no schema description and minimal text, the agent lacks critical context for correct 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter names, purposes, or constraints. The schema defines 'connectionId', 'installs' array with 'targetType' and 'targetId', but the description provides zero semantic context for these parameters.

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 title and description state 'Sync tool connection installs', and the endpoint URL indicates a PUT operation to update installs for a given connection. This clearly conveys the action of modifying the installation list, but the term 'sync' is ambiguous and does not explicitly specify whether it replaces or merges installs. However, it is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer the basic purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling GET endpoint for retrieving installs, but no comparison or context for when to use PUT vs GET. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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