docmgr_sync

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining that mode='check' is read-only and mode='resync' modifies baselines atomically, and detailing the orchestration steps. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with an overview, usage guidance, result summary, mode explanations, and a typical workflow. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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 complexity (orchestrating multiple sub-tools) and that an output schema exists (not shown), the description provides a thorough overview, workflow, and mode details. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., initialized docs) but is otherwise quite complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'mode' parameter and its two values (check, resync) in detail. However, it does not describe 'project_path' or 'docs_path' explicitly, though their purpose is implied. Partial compensation, but could be more explicit.

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 tool orchestrates a complete documentation sync, listing specific actions (detect changes, validate, assess quality, update baselines). It distinguishes from siblings like docmgr_assess_quality or docmgr_detect_changes by being a higher-level orchestrator.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when: After code changes to get complete documentation health report, or after doc updates to reset baselines' and outlines a typical workflow. It contrasts modes (check vs resync) but does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools instead.

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