sync_document

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the three-stage pipeline (sync → extract claims with line provenance → discover contradictions), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether syncing is idempotent, whether it mutates or creates records, what permissions/connectors are required, or what runDiscovery does on repeat runs.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and the resource, then lists formats and outcomes in the order the agent will need them. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 seven-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers the pipeline shape adequately but leaves the mutation semantics and return shape entirely unaddressed. An agent knows roughly what it does but not what it changes or gets back.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the seven parameters is already documented in the schema, and the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds only the format list, which loosely relates to filePath, and nothing about scope, subject, sourceName, sourceRole, environment, or runDiscovery semantics.

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 concrete verb (synchronizes) and a concrete resource (a local document file), and enumerates the accepted formats, which separates it from sibling syncers such as sync_github_repository and sync_website. It is clear, but it never names the closest sibling (sync_source) so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 format list implies 'use this for local files, not for remote repositories or websites', which is a reasonable inference against the sibling set. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (must the file exist? is a connector needed?) and no stated alternative for the overlapping sync_source tool.

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