sync_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'create or verify' but fails to disclose that by default it writes to the file (check_only defaults to false), nor does it mention side effects like file modification or handling of Mermaid blocks without links. This is a significant transparency gap for a potentially mutating operation.

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 a single sentence with no waste. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity sacrifices necessary context. For conciseness alone it earns a 4, but it is not maximally effective due to missing behavioral details.

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?

Despite having a schema and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that may modify a file. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and context about what constitutes a 'Mermaid block' or how verification behaves. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently use 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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how the 'document' path or 'check_only' flag relates to the stated behavior. This is acceptable but unhelpful.

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 function: 'Create or verify exactly one local Mermaid.ai link for every Mermaid block.' This includes a specific verb ('create or verify'), resource ('Mermaid block'), and scope ('every'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_diagrams or open_diagram.

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. It does not mention specific scenarios, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools (doctor, list_diagrams, open_diagram). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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