Sync Tasks

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds that 'only the supplied fields are changed', indicating partial update behavior, but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond 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?

The description is relatively short but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Use this to update...' and 'Updates the specified...' say similar things). The required parameters listing is repetitive and includes a duplicate. It could be streamlined without losing information.

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 description does not explain the return object structure (no output schema), nor does it detail the expected format of the 'updates' array. It references 'Schedule (Legacy)' without explanation. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should be more thorough to ensure correct usage.

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 100%, so the schema provides descriptions for both parameters (project_id and updates). The description merely repeats required parameters with a typo (duplicate project_id) and does not add semantic meaning or clarify the structure of the 'updates' array (items: {}). Thus it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 it creates or updates a batch of tasks and references 'Schedule (Legacy)' records, providing a specific verb and resource. However, there is confusion between 'creates or updates' and 'updates existing records', which slightly diminishes clarity. The endpoint path adds specificity but no sibling differentiation is given.

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 says to use it to update existing Schedule (Legacy) records, implying its context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other sync tools (e.g., sync_budget_line_items). The usage is implied but not clearly distinguished from alternatives.

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