acm_sync

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

Even with no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: idempotent re-runs, queuing on disconnection, backup before push, dry_run mode, and undo capability via batch_id. This adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear statement, bullet points for edge cases, and a returns section. It is concise without unnecessary words, though some points could be more tightly integrated.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (though not provided), the description covers input parameters, behavioral details (idempotency, queuing), return fields (synced, errors, batch_id, backup), and interaction with acm_undo. It is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: dry_run shows a plan without touching Anki, and export_tsv exports to TSV along with the push. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 pushes pending approved cards to Anki, is idempotent, and handles routing. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like acm_ingest or acm_resolve, though the reference to acm_undo provides some context.

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 usage context such as idempotency, handling when Anki is closed, and options like dry_run and export_tsv. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling tools.

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