wafle_products_sync_trigger

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

Annotations only note idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: the operation is asynchronous, returns a job id for polling, and behaves as a no-op error on manual stores. This goes beyond the minimal annotation data and discloses key runtime behavior.

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 two short paragraphs, with the core action and return value front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: async trigger, polling instruction, and the catalog mode constraint. No wasted 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?

For a simple trigger tool, the description covers the essential context: it returns a job id, tells the agent to poll the status endpoint, and warns about the manual-store edge case. Without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with both `slug` and `mode` having informative descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Trigger an asynchronous catalog sync for a store.' It adds that it returns a job id and directs polling to a specific status tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `wafle_products_sync_trigger_and_wait`, which is a closely related alternative.

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 usage conditions: it is 'only meaningful on catalog_mode = supabase_sync stores' and on manual stores it is a 'no-op error.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as `wafle_products_sync_trigger_and_wait`, but the provided context is strong.

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