overleaf_push_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses core behaviors: byte-for-byte diffing, uploading only changed/new files, and the absence of deletion. It does not mention overwriting behavior or the dry_run flag's effect, but the most critical behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action, and the second elaborates on behavior and the deletion caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 directory sync tool, the description covers what gets uploaded, how diffs work, and what it does not do. It does not describe return values or edge cases (e.g., project not found), but the output schema existence and the clarity of core usage keep it reasonably complete.

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%, and the schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Push') and resource ('Overleaf project') and clarifies scope as 'every locally-changed file under local_dir'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling overleaf_push_file by emphasizing it handles a directory of files, and from overleaf_delete_file by explicitly stating what it does not do.

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 provides an explicit when-not scenario: 'Does not delete remote files that were removed locally — use overleaf_delete_file for that.' This names the alternative tool for a specific situation. It also implies when to use it (syncing a directory of changed files), though it does not directly compare to overleaf_push_file, the name and scope make the distinction clear.

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