faf_cursor

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether files are created if missing, if existing content is overwritten, or if there are side effects beyond the actions. This is a missed opportunity to inform the agent of important traits.

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 concise at one sentence and front-loads the core actions. However, the exclamation mark and 'AI interop' tag add minimal value. It could be more structured by separating the purpose from context, but it is not verbose.

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 many siblings, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or how the tool interacts with existing files. An agent cannot fully gauge its behavior without additional context.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning or nuance beyond the schema's own descriptions, such as explaining the merge behavior or force overwrite implications.

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 operations (Import/Export/Sync) and resources (.cursorrules and project.faf), making the purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling sync tools like faf_sync, faf_bi_sync, or faf_tri_sync, missing a chance to clarify unique scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction to select correctly among many sync-related siblings.

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