sync_marvin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: this is a state-changing force refresh that is 'normally automatic' (i.e., a manual override). It does not address whether local unsynced changes are overwritten, auth requirements, or rate limits, which matters for a mutation-style tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and the key qualifier (normally automatic) with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters the description is nearly complete. The main residual gap is not clarifying whether the forced refresh can discard local state, but for a zero-parameter sync trigger this is largely adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail since none exist.

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?

States a specific verb ('force-refresh') and resource ('the local mirror from Marvin'), making the operation immediately clear. It is distinguishable from the CRUD-oriented siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with them.

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 parenthetical '(normally automatic)' implies this is only needed when the user wants to override/force the default sync behavior, which suggests a usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to invoke it vs. just waiting for the automatic sync, nor any prerequisites.

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