sync_to_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the name: it writes into a 'managed section' (implying it won't clobber unrelated file content), the result is committed with code, visible to teammates and tools lacking Mnemolith, and surfaces in reviews. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether it overwrites prior content, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and destination before the effect and the when-to-call clause. Every clause contributes; it is marginally verbose but not padded.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it adequately covers what it does, where it writes, the blast radius, and when to invoke it. Only permission/overwrite semantics are left unspecified, a minor gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level gaps exist to compensate for.

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 (write/sync) plus the resource (this project's current memories) and the exact destination artifact (the managed section of AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md). An agent can distinguish this file-writing sync from sibling memory operations like remember, recall, and replace_memory without opening any schema.

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 states when to call it: 'when the user asks, or after a batch of new memories.' This is clear triggering context, though it names no exclusions or alternative sibling (e.g., when to prefer remember or replace_memory instead).

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