jev_sync_now

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose side effects, and it does: it states that writing all queued edits into code and refreshing every Figma screen from code both occur. It is transparent about scope ('all queued', 'every screen') and about the fact that both code and Figma are mutated. It does not mention reversibility, permission requirements, or failure modes, but for a zero-parameter action the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 entire description is one sentence with a colon splitting the action into two understandable clauses. It is front-loaded with the key idea ('One-click sync') and contains no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter action this is largely complete: it says what will be written and what will be refreshed, and there is no output schema to document. The main gaps are the lack of any indication whether the operation is asynchronous, how success is reported, or what happens if the queue is empty. These are minor for a one-click sync but prevent a perfect score.

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 input schema is empty, so the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description reinforces the no-input nature with 'One-click' and uses 'all queued' and 'every screen' to make clear there is no subset selection. No additional parameter-level detail is needed.

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 opens with 'One-click sync' and then specifies the exact bidirectional effect: queued Figma edits are written into code, then every Figma screen is refreshed from code. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that differentiates it from one-way siblings like jev_push_screens or investigation tools like jev_list_pending.

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?

There is no explicit 'use when' or 'do not use' language and no reference to alternatives, so an agent must infer that this is the catch-all synchronization command. The phrase 'one-click' implies it is the single command to reconcile Figma and code, but it does not say when a narrower tool such as jev_push_screens would be preferable. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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