faf_cursor

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

Annotations declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is neither destructive nor open-world, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that it returns the merged or written result, useful given there is no output schema, but it does not disclose the write-over-file nuances that the schema's merge/force params imply.

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 front-loaded sentences with minimal waste: the operation, the return, and the intent. It is appropriately sized, though the middle sentence about return values is partly redundant with the action description.

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 moderate-complexity mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotation-backed safety, the description covers the what, the return, and the purpose. Nothing beyond minor sibling disambiguation is missing to call it correctly.

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%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the action enum and the merge/force semantics. The description mentions only the import/export direction and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific bidirectional resource operation: importing .cursorrules into project.faf and writing it back out. The Cursor IDE convention is named explicitly, making the resource identifiable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool faf_sync or the analogous faf_claude/faf_gemini conventions, which an agent must disambiguate between.

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 closing sentence ('Use this to keep Cursor rules and your .faf in agreement from one source') gives an implied purpose but no when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to alternatives. With faf_sync and other convention-specific siblings present, the lack of explicit differentiation leaves selection partly to inference.

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