sync_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the source, target table, name-mapping behavior, and platform-specific empty-result behavior, but it does not say whether existing contacts are overwritten or merged, whether permissions are required, or how repeated syncs behave.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and structured into purpose, mapping effect, and platform caveat. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 parameterless sync tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the source, target, mapping effect, and platform behavior. It leaves some mutation semantics unstated, but it is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema coverage is listed at 100%, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter detail beyond the tool's operation.

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 names a specific verb (sync), resource (contacts), and source (macOS AddressBook), and states the effect of writing into the contacts table. It is clearly distinguishable from generic sync siblings by its macOS-specific source, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with import_contacts_vcf or other contact-import tools.

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 an implied usage context: syncing native macOS AddressBook contacts. It also states a platform constraint (macOS only; empty result elsewhere). However, it never says when to choose this over siblings such as import_contacts_vcf, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions beyond the platform note.

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