app_sync_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation overwrites generated files and prunes String Catalogs to locales.app, hinting at a destructive/reconciling mutation, but it says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to manual edits.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and parenthetical detail for the secondary effect. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the generated artifacts well. It is still incomplete for a mutating tool with zero annotations and an undocumented required parameter.

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 single parameter app_dir has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description; the agent can only infer from 'app.spec.json' that a project directory is involved. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, so it falls below the 0-param baseline of 4.

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 action ('Re-generate') and enumerates the exact artifacts produced: AppSpec.swift, PaywallSource.swift and Configuration.storekit, plus a catalog-pruning side effect. This makes the tool's job unambiguous, though it stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from close siblings like storekit_generate.

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?

'after editing app.spec.json' supplies a clear triggering condition, which is genuine usage context. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not guidance, so an agent must infer that this is the post-edit sync step.

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