sync_instructions

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent; the description adds what is actually written ('managed instruction blocks'), that writes carry recovery/audit references, that apply=false is a no-write preview, and that the tool does not authorize overwriting unrelated host content. It also previews the return shape (planned changes, validation, warnings, manual steps), which is meaningful scoping beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior, and every clause carries information. The semicolon-chained middle section is dense and slightly run-on, which costs a point against a maximally clean structure.

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?

Covers the prerequisite, the sibling routing, the preview-vs-write distinction, and the write safety boundary; an output schema exists so return values needn't be fully enumerated. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds consequence-level meaning for apply by contrasting 'previews' against 'writes managed instruction blocks with recovery/audit references.' It does not restate host_ids defaults, but those are already documented in the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Plan or apply active-rule synchronization into selected agent instruction targets.' It immediately differentiates itself from the two nearest siblings by naming sync_skills (native skill directories) and host_setup (initial host configuration).

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?

Explicit trigger ('Use after changing approved rules'), explicit alternatives with the condition that selects each ('use sync_skills for...', 'host_setup for...'), and an explicit prerequisite ('Requires initialized project memory'). Nothing about when to choose this tool is left to inference.

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