faf_gemini

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds that it returns the merged or written result and that data flows both directions, but it does not disclose the practical consequence that sync/force rewrites GEMINI.md or that import alone writes nothing – that caveat lives only in the schema.

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 compact sentences that front-load the operation and follow with the return behavior and purpose. The phrase 'for the chosen action' is mildly redundant given the enum, but overall it wastes little.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential what, why, and return shape. The action-specific write/merge semantics that an agent would need are delegated to the schema, leaving only minor gaps.

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 action enum values are individually documented in the schema, so the description need not restate them. It adds only the bilateral import/write framing, not meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 a specific resource (GEMINI.md, project.faf) and a clear bidirectional verb (import into / write from), with the parenthetical clarifying the Gemini CLI convention. This is easily distinguished from faf_claude and faf_cursor by naming the exact artifact, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 gives a clear purpose statement ('keep a Gemini context file and your .faf in agreement from one source'), which implies when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it, so it lands just below the explicit routing bar.

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