paper_research_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add real value by scoping what is untouched (manuscript text and manual references.bib). It does not say whether existing generated research/ files are overwritten or deleted, whether the paper must already exist, or what happens if the supplied bundle is older rather than newer.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the explicit non-impact statement; no filler. It is arguably too terse given the operational ambiguity, but nothing present is wasted.

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 mutation-style refresh with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented `name` parameter, the description leaves out overwrite semantics, prerequisites, and the resulting file set. The safety-adjacent claim about untouched files is helpful but does not cover what an agent needs to invoke this correctly alongside paper_research_import.

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%: `handoff` is documented in the schema itself, and the description only adds the 'newer' qualifier. The `name` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the agent must guess whether it identifies the paper and whether it is optional or derived from context.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Refresh a paper's generated research/ files') plus the source ('newer handoff bundle'), which is more precise than the title. It doesn't distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling paper_research_import, so an agent can't fully tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 phrase 'from a newer handoff bundle' implies the trigger condition (a newer bundle exists for the paper), which is useful implicit guidance. However, it never states when NOT to use it, or how it differs from paper_research_import or paper_research_context, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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