lsp_sync_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (sending didChange and auto-opening) but does not mention side effects, error handling, or prerequisites. Minimal but acceptable.

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?

A single, clear sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key behavior (auto-open). No redundant words, front-loaded with the action and target.

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?

The description is adequate for a sync tool but lacks details on return behavior, error conditions, or how the sync operation is performed (full text vs diff). Given no output schema, more context on what the agent should expect would improve 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema (text, filePath, language descriptions). Baseline 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 tool syncs document content changes to the LSP server via textDocument/didChange, and mentions auto-opening. This distinguishes it from siblings like lsp_open_document and lsp_close_document.

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 implies usage for syncing changes after modifications, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., lsp_open_document for first open, lsp_close_document for closing). The auto-open note gives some context but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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