faf_sync

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns what was written, which is useful. However, it does not describe the synchronization process in detail or any potential side effects beyond the sync itself. Given annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the alternative is mentioned efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description plus schema/annotations cover purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter. It could briefly explain what 'sync' entails, but overall it's complete enough for a focused tool.

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% for the single parameter 'path', which already has a description stating it sets session context. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so baseline 3.

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 that the tool syncs a project.faf with CLAUDE.md to keep them aligned. It distinguishes from the sibling faf_bi_sync, which handles multiple targets. The verb 'sync' and resource 'project.faf with CLAUDE.md' 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?

Explicitly says when to use: for the single CLAUDE.md target, and when not: use faf_bi_sync for multiple files (AGENTS.md, .cursorrules, GEMINI.md). This provides clear guidance on choosing between siblings.

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