sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Idempotent and additive; never deletes,' which gives critical safety information. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like network timeouts, data volume, or whether existing data is overwritten (though additive implies it isn't). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence and key behavioral traits in the second. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and safety.

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 (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and safety profile. However, it lacks any mention of when to invoke sync relative to other operations or what happens if the parameter is omitted. This is a noticeable gap that prevents full completeness.

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% because the only parameter (card_csv_path) is already described as 'Optional Ramp-style CSV to backfill.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the primary action: 'Pull every source into the store.' This is a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like reconcile, though the phrasing is distinctive enough that an agent can infer its role.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent is left to guess whether sync should be run before reconcile or other expense tools, which is a significant gap.

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