sync_scripts

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by detailing the exact side effects: it writes many files, overwrites matching local files, permanently loses unexported local edits, and creates a .customaise-manifest.json. It also explains shared/subscribed script exclusion. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context that annotations alone cannot provide, and there is no contradiction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the action, the destructive warning with its consequence, the manifest artifact, the exclusion rule, and the recommended use case. The warning is front-loaded after the first sentence and uses clear emphasis without becoming 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?

For a one-parameter, bulk file-export tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it destroys, what it creates, what it excludes, and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the outcome is described through its filesystem effects and the manifest, so an agent has enough information to select, parameterize, and predict the operation.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage, including an example value ('./customaise-scripts/'). The description reinforces that scripts go 'to a local directory' and adds file-extension details, but it does not materially deepen the meaning of the directory parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence clearly states a specific verb ('Bulk export'), a resource ('all your own scripts from Customaise'), and a concrete result ('to a local directory as individual .user.js or .agent.js files'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing bulk operation over all own scripts and explicitly excluding shared/subscribed scripts.

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 an explicit intended use case ('set up a local workspace for editing scripts with your IDE') and makes the exclusion of read-only shared/subscribed scripts clear. However, it does not explicitly name a single-script alternative like export_script or state when not to use sync_scripts, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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