faf_bi_sync

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), but the description only states bidirectional sync. It lacks details on conflict resolution, permissions, or side effects, which are important for a sync tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and key update. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 is adequate for a tool with 8 boolean parameters and good schema coverage, but it omits behavioral details like the interaction of 'auto' and 'watch', or how 'path' affects subsequent calls. Lacks output schema to explain return values.

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%, with each parameter clearly described. The description adds version info and context for extra formats (e.g., AGENTS.md), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: bidirectional sync between project.faf and CLAUDE.md, with additional formats. It uses a specific verb (sync) and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like faf_sync or faf_tri_sync.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like faf_sync or faf_tri_sync. It mentions additional formats but does not help the agent choose between them.

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