faf_sync

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

The description adds 'bi-directional' but does not explain sync behavior (e.g., merge strategy, conflict resolution, side effects). Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden but falls short.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word is essential and contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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 presence of multiple sync siblings and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the tool returns or how it differs from bi_sync/tri_sync. The brief description lacks sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 a clear description for 'path' (project path and session context). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 syncs 'project.faf' with 'CLAUDE.md' and specifies 'Bi-directional context', which distinguishes it from sibling sync tools like faf_tri_sync. The verb 'sync' and resource names are specific.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like faf_bi_sync or faf_tri_sync. The description does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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