faf_sync

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it warns that 'Operates on the REAL filesystem' (non-sandboxed side effects) and 'May overwrite faf-generated AGENTS.md', plus provides a mitigation ('use a custom AGENTS.md'). This is strong 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?

Three tight sentences: the first states the action and purpose, the second warns about the real filesystem, and the third explains the overwrite risk and how to avoid it. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the command, its purpose, the project input, and critical side-effect warnings. It doesn't describe return values or error conditions, but those are less critical given the simplicity and the provided warnings.

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 covers 100% of the sole parameter with a clear description including the default. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level insight beyond the phrase 'project directory', so the baseline score of 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 explicitly states the command (`faf sync`), the resource (project directory), and the desired outcome (regenerate CLAUDE.md and other agent docs from project.faf). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling faf tools like faf_migrate or faf_score.

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 gives a clear context: it regenerates docs and operates on the real filesystem, implying caution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions under which this tool should not be used, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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