ddflow_pr_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses every state transition (merge completes item and retargets stacked work, changes requeue with review text, closed parks for a human, approved+green auto-merges under config), the config dependency, and the meaning of exit code 2 as distinct from no-op.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the branching outcomes, and every clause carries real information. The single long run-on sentence is dense but not padded; only mild structural improvement is possible.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, 2-param tool, the behavioral coverage of outcomes, config gating, and exit codes is strong. It stops short of stating where results are recorded or what success surfaces, but no output schema exists to demand that.

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 both parameters (item, as_agent) are already documented by the schema; the description adds no additional syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 (sync) and resource (PRs in REVIEW via the forge) and enumerates exactly what it does with each outcome state. An agent can distinguish it from ddflow_pr_status (read-only) and ddflow_pr_sync without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly frames context ('reviewers in REVIEW') and notes that ddflow_next performs the same sync when [flow].sync_on_next is on, which is a genuine 'you may not need this' hint. However, it never names a read-only alternative like ddflow_pr_status, so the comparative routing is implied rather than explicit.

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