sync_unity

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

With annotations only indicating readOnlyHint=false, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the sequence (resolve, bump before sync), atomic patch version increment, and return value types (sync clean, compile errors, timeout). This goes beyond the bare annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact with front-loaded purpose, followed by two explanatory lines for parameters and one line for return values. Every sentence provides distinct value, and it remains readable without fluff.

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 reload/compile tool with no output schema, it covers the essential behavior, parameters, and return outcomes. It lacks details on blocking vs. non-blocking behavior, but the timeout message implies blocking with a limit, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to expect the tool's behavior.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains resolve and bump with concrete use cases and implications. Timeout is not elaborated but the schema provides a default; overall, the description compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the tool triggers a Unity Refresh and optionally Resolve, then waits for new code to live. It distinguishes itself from siblings like await_compile by being the unified reload trigger with optional version bump, making its purpose 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?

It provides specific context for when to use resolve (after package.json change) and bump (implies resolve). While it doesn't name alternative tools, it gives clear situational guidance for the parameters, which is sufficient for usage decisions.

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