sync_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only scoping (requested notes only). It says nothing about whether the operation is idempotent, whether it mutates or overwrites note content, what happens to notes not listed, or cost/latency of reindexing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint ('only the explicitly requested') lands before anything else. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutating reindex operation with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine path format, side effects, or how this differs from the several other sync/index tools in the sibling list.

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 0% for the single required parameter note_paths, so the description must compensate and does not. It gives no hint about path format (vault-relative vs absolute), whether extensions are required, or whether the array has practical limits.

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 (reindex) and resource (vault notes), with the scope qualifier 'only the explicitly requested' that distinguishes it from a full-vault sync. It does not name its closest siblings (sync_index, sync_chunks_tool), so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'only the explicitly requested' implies this is for targeted reindexing rather than a bulk operation, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over sync_index or sync_chunks_tool, nor any prerequisite such as notes needing to already exist.

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