sync.fromIde

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose two behavioral facts: the direction of the sync and the API-key auth requirement. It stops short of conflict/overwrite behavior, idempotency, or whether an existing repo-linked skill is replaced.

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, zero waste, with the verb and direction front-loaded and the auth requirement appended. It is appropriately sized, though terse given how little structured data supports it.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description should do more. It names the return value and auth requirement but omits required-parameter semantics and conflict behavior, leaving an agent under-informed for a 5-param write operation.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'from the IDE' to source_ide and 'local skill file' to source_path, but leaves body_md, branch, and repo_url entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 states a specific verb (sync), resource (local skill file), and direction (from IDE to cloud), plus the return (repo-linked skill UUID). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like cloud.pushSkill/cloud.pullSkill, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (MODELBOUND_API_KEY), which is useful context, but offers no when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus the many sibling sync/write tools (cloud.pushSkill, skills.writeLocal). Usage is only implied by the 'from IDE' framing.

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