ofw_sync_messages

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it reveals that fetchUnreadBodies marks messages as read on OFW, that deep walks all pages, and that unread inbox bodies are not fetched by default to avoid marking. 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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds essential information. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (counts and list of unread). It covers key behaviors like deep walking and mark-as-read. Minor omission: no detail on cache behavior across multiple calls, but overall sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral context for each parameter: deep for backfilling, fetchUnreadBodies for marking read, and folders defaulting to all three. This provides value beyond schema.

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 messages into a local cache and returns counts per folder and a list of unread inbox messages with bodies not fetched. It distinguishes from siblings like ofw_get_message by explicitly referencing it.

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 advises calling ofw_get_message for unread messages and explains deep:true for backfilling. It provides clear context but does not explicitly compare to other sibling tools like ofw_list_messages.

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