faf_sync

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds important context: 'Updates each block in place — it never overwrites your file', which clarifies the mutation style. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and target files, then provide usage guidance. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 explains what the tool does, to which files, and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the tool's output (synced files) is implied. For a simple sync tool, this is sufficient. Could include side effects or prerequisites, but current version is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% and all parameters have clear boolean descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, listing target files in prose. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Sync', the resource 'project.faf', and the target files (CLAUDE.md plus optional others). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like faf_about or faf_enhance by clearly defining its unique purpose.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction ('Use this after editing project.faf') and explains the tool's behavior (updates blocks in place, never overwrites). It implicitly tells when not to use it (for other operations). An explicit alternative would improve it to 5.

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