node_plugins_sync

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

The 'Push' wording is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully discloses that referenced shared lists travel with the config and that only nodes where the plugin is active are targeted. It says nothing about idempotency, failure handling, or whether pushes can be undone, so it adds meaningful but partial behavioral context over the annotations.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded; the second sentence elaborates scope and payload. It slightly restates the first ('Sync ... to nodes' vs 'Push ... to every connected node'), a minor redundancy but overall tight.

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 write/sync tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description covers the core behavior and target scope but leaves the sole parameter and any return or error expectations unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is one parameter (uuid) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or clarifies that it identifies which plugin to sync. With coverage below 50%, the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented parameter and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (sync/push) and resource (Node Plugin config) plus the exact scope: 'every connected node this plugin is active on'. That scope clause distinguishes it from family siblings like node_plugins_update, node_plugins_execute, shared_lists_sync and snippets_sync, which an agent can rule out without opening a 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?

The description implies the usage context (propagating the current config out to active nodes) but never states when to choose this over node_plugins_update or node_plugins_execute, nor any prerequisite such as the plugin already being created. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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