sync_wiki

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it states that configured additional sources and their cached documents are preserved, and that the existing index survives a failed rebuild — failure/atomicity semantics that annotations cannot express.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the preservation/failure guarantees following. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, what is rebuilt, what is preserved, and what happens on failure. It leaves out details like expected duration or whether the results are reported anywhere, which are minor for a no-arg sync tool.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify. No parameter syntax or options are needed or missing.

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?

Concrete verbs (fetch, rebuild) paired with a specific resource (official wiki documentation/search/catalog). The scoping to the 'official wiki' while explicitly preserving 'configured additional sources' cleanly separates it from the sibling sync_additional_sources, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

The mention that additional sources are preserved implies sync_additional_sources is the tool for those, but the description never states when to run this versus alternatives or what prerequisite state (e.g. network, config) is needed. Usage is only inferable from the scoping language.

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