sync_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does reveal non-obvious behavior: upsert semantics by (kind, key) and version bumping per sync, plus the markdown format. However, it does not disclose overwrite/retention details, required permissions, or side effects beyond versioning.

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 tightly written sentences: front-loaded verb/resource, immediately followed by identity/version semantics and a clear use case. Every clause earns its place without repetition or fluff.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, identity, version behavior, doc kinds, and intended usage. It is slightly light on return value/response behavior and explicit differentiation from siblings, but it is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 60%, so the description adds some value. It clarifies that kind+key form the identity ('Upserts by (kind, key)'), and 'rendered markdown' explains the body format. Yet title and status are not semantically elaborated, and the enum values are already 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Sync') and identifies the resource ('long-form project document') with enumerations of doc kinds (plan/spec/progress/runbook/research). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'docs an agent maintains in-repo', clearly separating this from logging or progress-update tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for docs an agent maintains in-repo, so the log carries their current state.' This gives clear context, but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, keeping it just below a 5.

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