sync_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: it uses the current task automatically, auto-resolves previous plan notes, and is intended for post-plan-mode use. This goes beyond the schema and provides useful operational context.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers the essential behavioral context (auto-context, auto-resolution, invocation timing) and clearly situates it among the sibling tools.

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 both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states about task_id being an optional override. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action (sync), the target resource (an implementation plan to the currently claimed task as a working note), and adds distinctive details like automatic context use and auto-resolution of previous notes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_working_note and resolve_working_note.

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 gives explicit timing guidance ('Call this after exiting plan mode') and emphasizes automatic context use, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the specialization is clear from the context.

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