faf_agents

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which is consistent with modifying files. The description mentions sync but does not elaborate on merge behavior, overwrite risks, or side effects beyond what the parameter schema describes (force, merge). Some behavioral context is provided by the schema but the description adds minimal new information.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary actions and the resources involved, 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description could be more complete. It does not explain the implications of force and merge, provide usage examples, or clarify when to use sync vs import/export. While the schema covers parameter details, the description lacks the high-level completeness needed for a tool that modifies files with multiple options.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions, including enum values for action and explanations for force, merge, and path. The description adds the context that operations involve AGENTS.md and project.faf, which helps understand the action directions, but this is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly augment schema meaning.

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 tool performs import, export, and sync operations between AGENTS.md and project.faf files. It specifies the verb (import/export/sync) and the resources involved, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely operate on different files or formats.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like faf_sync or faf_tri_sync. It does not state prerequisites, conditions for import vs export vs sync, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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