sync_files

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the exact skip list (.git, node_modules, .env, .venv, __pycache__, .DS_Store), the 100 MB size cap, hash-based change detection, the guarantee that nothing is deleted, and the resumable in_progress loop. The 'never deletes' claim does not contradict destructiveHint=true, because the description itself explains that existing files can be replaced and that this is gated behind confirmation.

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-loads the core action and diff semantics before the conditional workflows, and every sentence carries operational content (skip rules, size limit, resume loop). It is dense but not padded; the directory skip list is the only mildly detail-heavy passage.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of naming the non-trivial result states (confirm_required, in_progress) and what to do with each. It stops short of describing the ordinary success response (counts of uploaded vs skipped), which would round it out.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is already high, but the description still adds real semantic value for confirm (one approval for the whole list, then repeat with confirm=true) and dry_run (preview only). It does not mention exclude, remote_path, or desk_url, which the schema carries on its own.

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 and resource ('Upload a local file or folder to a project disk') and immediately qualifies the semantics: size/SHA-256 diffing, new-and-changed only, never deletes. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_files, move_path or delete_path, which are inspection or mutation-of-existing-path tools.

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?

Gives explicit branching rules an agent needs: new files upload without asking, replacements require a single confirm=true retry after asking the user, dry_run previews only, and an in_progress result means repeat the same call. Each condition names the action to take, so no inference is required.

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