Sync

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds architectural context (shared .git, no re-clone, canonical checkout stays on the default branch so resets don't disturb sessions) but says nothing about what 'sync' changes on the branch, conflict/failure behavior, or the destructive prune_merged path noted in the schema. Adequate context, clear tool-specific gaps.

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?

Two sentences, appropriately sized, but the lead 'Sync (rm_worktree).' is a restatement of the name/title and the following sentence spends its budget on worktree architecture rather than the tool's job. Structure is fine; front-loading is wasted on a non-informative opener.

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 12-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is missing the essentials: what the sync operation does, which sibling tool to use instead for add/remove/list/merge/audit, and how the operation-keyed parameters ('For add', 'For sync', 'For audit') are selected when no operation parameter exists. An agent cannot confidently call this correctly from the description alone.

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% across all 12 parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description contributes no parameter-level information (no mention of base/into/strategy/adopt/force or the operation keywords those parameters key off), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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's operative statement is 'Manage git worktrees for concurrent multi-session development', a broad category verb that never says what this tool (named 'sync') actually performs. It identifies the domain and the CONCEPT:RM-WORKTREE tag but does not distinguish rm_worktree_sync from the ~9 overlapping siblings (rm_worktree_add, rm_worktree_merge, rm_worktree_audit, rm_worktree_prune, etc.). The only specific content is about the worktree layout, not the tool's action.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a given worktree operation. The per-operation hints ('For add:', 'For remove:', 'For audit:') live in the schema property descriptions, not the tool description, and no operation selector is even exposed in the schema, so an agent gets no routing help from the description.

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