sync_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden—but it discloses only EISV field semantics (ranges and provenance), not behavior. It omits side effects such as auto_export_on_significance (governance history export), include_memory_suggestions (KG lookup), identity gating hinted by require_strong_identity, and what the response looks like. The 'implemented by process_agent_update()' line is an implementation detail, not 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?

Roughly 70 words with the purpose front-loaded, but the 'implemented by process_agent_update()' clause is dead weight for an agent consuming the tool, and the EISV definitions are packed into one dense unbroken paragraph that is hard to scan. Information-dense but structurally unhelpful.

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 tool with 23 parameters, zero annotations, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers only the EISV domain and omits the things an agent most needs: the call's outcome/return behavior, side-effect triggers, identity prerequisites, and sibling differentiation. The EISV semantics are thorough, but they constitute a small fraction of what a correct call requires.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it defines the EISV conceptual model (E=Energy, I=Information Integrity, S=Entropy, V=Valence), their numeric ranges, and their provenance semantics—none of which appear in the schema, which merely references `eisv` in sensor_data. This grounds parameters like sensor_data, complexity, and epistemic_class in a shared vocabulary.

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?

"Primary workflow name for checking in state" is essentially a restatement of sync_state and never says what the call accomplishes (stores state? reports metrics? computes a response?). It also fails to differentiate from the confusingly similar sibling check_working_state. The detailed EISV field definitions give substance about what 'state' contains, which prevents a 1, but the core purpose remains vague and jargon-bound.

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 'primary workflow for checking in' phrase weakly implies a usage context, but the description provides no exclusions, no conditions, and no alternatives. With 13 siblings including check_working_state, record_result, and health_check, an agent has no basis for choosing sync_state over the near-identical check_working_state, nor for knowing when NOT to use it.

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