openspec_sync_revisions

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

The description implies writing to files (design.md or proposal.md) but does not disclose what happens to existing content, whether it appends/overwrites, or what permissions are required. No mention of reversibility or side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loaded with the action and target. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing conciseness.

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 that the tool modifies files and has a single parameter, the description lacks details about the syncing mechanism, outcome, and any return value. It is too minimal for a tool that may have significant effects.

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?

The only parameter, changeId, is described in the schema as 'Change ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 uses the verb 'Sync' and specifies the resource 'recorded revisions' and targets 'design.md or proposal.md'. It also provides context 'before archiving', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'openspec_record_revision' and 'openspec_update_revision'. However, 'sync' could be more precise (e.g., copy, merge).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. The phrase 'before archiving' implies a specific context but does not clarify alternatives or prerequisites. No comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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