faf_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that it "Returns the merged or written result for the chosen action"; the richer behavioral caveats (force preserves content outside the managed block, merge controls whether anything is written) live entirely in the schema, not the description.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the bidirectional purpose and ending with the use case. The middle sentence about return values is mildly redundant but earns its place by signaling the action-dependent output. No filler.

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?

For a sync tool with no output schema, the description covers the two directions of flow, the action-dependent return, and the motivating use case. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameter detail, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 the schema thoroughly documents action, merge, force, and path, including enum semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 names specific verbs and resources: importing AGENTS.md into project.faf and writing AGENTS.md from project.faf. The naming of the OpenAI/Codex convention implicitly distinguishes it from sibling convention tools (faf_claude, faf_cursor, faf_gemini), but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

It states the use case clearly: "Use this to keep a Codex/OpenAI-style AGENTS.md and your .faf in agreement from one source." That gives a clear context for when to reach for it, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer faf_claude or faf_sync instead).

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