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

The description adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that the tool returns the note and affected specs, that the agent does the writing, and highlights the critical requirement to send updates with 'resync:true' to avoid stale designs. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations not captured in 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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence provides unique value: purpose, return contents, workflow, and a crucial usage caveat. It front-loads the core purpose and is well-structured for an agent, though it could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by stating what is returned (note, specs, instructions). It also explains the adoption workflow and the resync flag. However, the missing project_id semantics and lack of detail about edge cases leave some gaps, so it is not a 5.

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 only 50% — 'note' is described, but 'project_id' has no schema description and the tool description does not mention it at all. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter but does not, leaving the agent to guess project_id's purpose.

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 specific function: 're-syncing ONE changed Idea note into the specs that depend on it.' It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the scoped single-note job and references the app's 'Re-sync N systems' button, distinguishing it from broader operations.

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 gives clear context on when to use it: for a single Idea note, and it notes the result should be sent to the owner's Inbox to ADOPT. It references 'get_stale' in the schema but does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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