faf_moltbot_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Operates on the REAL filesystem' and 'Overwrites SOUL.md in the project root', which alert the agent to destructive, non-sandboxed behavior. This is valuable context, though it does not mention error handling or idempotency.

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 three sentences, each providing new information: the command and its purpose, the real-filesystem caveat, and the overwrite behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, operation, and key safety warning. It does not discuss return values or error cases, but these are less critical for a file-generation command.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'project' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run `faf-moltbot sync` on a project directory to generate SOUL.md' — a specific verb, command, and output resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting it overwrites SOUL.md in the project root, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides context that this tool is for generating SOUL.md in a project directory and operates on the real filesystem, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like faf_sync or state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The real-filesystem warning implies caution, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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