Trigger a real Sync run (Weave)

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

With readOnlyHint=false already declared, the description still adds meaningful behavior: an unsigned-in engine returns notConfigured, and this is expected rather than a failure. It also notes the real singleton/service entry point, though it omits how a sync run manifests (e.g., progress or return shape).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but a large share of the text is internal module-path archaeology ('MEASURED: the entry point is NOT Weave.sys.mjs…') that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. It is useful context but not efficiently packaged.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and a minimal readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the key operational caveat (notConfigured when signed out) and the sibling relationship. Only minor gaps remain around return/progress behavior.

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 single enum parameter is already documented with 'status = report engine state; sync = trigger a run'. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: run the real Firefox Sync engine rather than the mock account. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_sync_probe, which is explicitly named as the mock-account alternative.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies (real engine vs mock) and routes the agent to browser_sync_probe for mock testing. It also sets an expectation for the no-account case but doesn't state explicit exclusions beyond that.

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