kernel_places_sync

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: this is a mutating operation that writes coordinates back to places, it depends on an external geocoder being enabled, and geocoding is capped by the `geocode` parameter. It stops short of saying whether existing coordinates are overwritten, whether the sync is idempotent, or what happens when the geocoder is off, which are important for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the conditional geocoding clause. The grammar is somewhat compressed ('events and travel for places', embedded em dashes), which costs a little readability but not enough to warrant a lower mark.

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 explained, and the single parameter is covered. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output-schema-independent safety signals, the description should say more about overwrite behavior and what state it leaves places in. It is adequate for calling the tool but incomplete for calling it safely.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `geocode` is described as a cap ('up to `geocode` addresses') that applies only to addresses that still have none. That gives an agent the unit, the effect, and the conditional scope of a parameter the schema leaves undocumented. It does not clarify the meaning of the default of 20 or a value of 0 (presumably disabling geocoding), leaving a small ambiguity around the 'geocoder is on' toggle versus the numeric argument.

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 names a specific operation: re-reading events and travel records to refresh place data, extracting coordinates from map links, and optionally geocoding addresses that lack coordinates. That goes well beyond the bare name 'sync' and tells an agent what the tool actually does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like kernel_places_set or kernel_places_list, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to run when place coordinates are missing or stale, and the phrase 'when the geocoder is on' hints at a conditional environment. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling, leaving selection largely to inference.

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