fields_sync_definition

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a database write ('Copy ... into the database') but does not say whether an existing definition is overwritten, whether prior DB state is lost, what auth is required, or how conflicts between JSON and DB versions are resolved — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the precondition immediately after it. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 three-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one precondition, and the schema fully documents the parameters. However, the consequences of syncing (overwrite semantics, return value, error cases) are absent, leaving the agent under-informed about the operation's effect.

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 description coverage is 100%, with site, kind (enum of four definition types) and key all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'JSON-sourced' framing but no syntax, format, or default info beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Copy ... into the database') and resource ('JSON-sourced definition'), and the qualifier 'JSON-sourced' distinguishes it from the sibling fields_create_definition/fields_update_definition. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Only JSON definitions can be synced' gives one exclusion condition, which is real guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over fields_create_definition or fields_update_definition, nor what to do if the definition is not JSON-sourced. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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