ofw_sync_messages

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It discloses that the sync is bounded and resumable, that every call re-checks the newest page first, that done:false means older history is still backfilling (not that recent messages are missing), and that fetchUnreadBodies marks messages read with a co-parent-visible timestamp. It also explains the budget mechanism and local vs. hosted behavior. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and return shape before diving into behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, though the length is substantial. The structure is logical: purpose, return shape, follow-up action, sync behavior, deep flag, budget/resume semantics, and local vs. hosted distinction.

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 complex sync tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering safety, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return value shape, the resume mechanism, the meaning of done:false, the deep flag's purpose, and the mark-as-read side effect. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the deep:true use case (backfill suspected gaps), the budget/resume semantics for maxRequests, and the mark-as-read consequence of fetchUnreadBodies. It doesn't add much beyond the schema for folders, but the added context for the other parameters justifies a score above baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Sync messages from OurFamilyWizard into the local cache') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the return shape (counts per folder, unread inbox messages without bodies) and the follow-up call (ofw_get_message). It clearly identifies what this tool does and how it differs from related message tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains when to pass deep:true (backfill suspected gaps), when to call again (when done:false), and what done:false means vs. does not mean. It also names the alternative for fetching bodies (ofw_get_message) and explains the mark-as-read tradeoff. This is comprehensive usage guidance.

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