run_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral facts: it downloads and pushes files (a mutation), and dry_run is the side-effect-free preview. It omits idempotency, how 'modified' is detected, behavior on partial failure or pre-existing files, and rate/volume limits on the sync.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action, then the dry-run variant, then prerequisites. No filler sentences; the only weakness is that terseness here edges into under-specification rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutating sync tool with zero annotation coverage the description leaves too much open: three of four parameters are unexplained and the consequences of a non-dry run (what is written, what is overwritten) are not characterized.

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 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters, but it only covers dry_run. max_keys, source_label, and anchor_application_id are entirely undefined in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess their meaning and effect.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Run edge sync'), then enumerates the two concrete actions: listing an allowlisted S3 prefix and pushing new/modified files to DecisionPen. No sibling tool in the catalog performs sync, so the tool's identity is unambiguous, though jargon like 'edge sync' is never expanded.

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?

It gives a usage variant ('dry_run: report candidates without download/push') and hard prerequisites (DP_MCP_MODE=propose|persist_approved, DP_API_TOKEN), which is real guidance. It never says when to prefer this over other ingestion paths, when not to run it, or what happens if the mode/token are missing.

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