Preview or send shared data

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: preview sends nothing, sync transmits only what current choices allow, cannot be undone from here, and is refused moments after a previous sync (a debounce the idempotentHint does not convey). It also enumerates sync failure reasons (terms not accepted, recent sync, server unreachable). It stops short of explaining auth/permission requirements, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core sentence, then cleanly labeled Use/Behavior/Returns/Errors sections so an agent can skim. It is dense and long for a one-parameter tool, but nearly every sentence carries operational content rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return payload for both modes, including windowing of secrets and the conditional talent-pool request. Error behavior and the side effect of sync over the network are also covered, leaving nothing essential missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage on a single enum parameter the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by tying each value to a usage rule and a distinct return shape. The only gap is that it does not repeat the enum syntax, which the schema already handles.

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 the exact resource (the data the user chose to share) and distinguishes its two modes, preview and sync, in the very first sentence. It explicitly routes away from freeapply_get_settings for the choices themselves, so an agent can separate it from that sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Use conditions are spelled out per mode: preview when the user asks what is shared, sync only when the user asks to send now. It also names what this tool is NOT for (changing choices) and where that happens instead (dashboard Settings, Data sharing).

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