sync_missing_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool modifies files, creates backups (despite the createBackup parameter), supports dry-run previews, or what happens to existing translations. It only mentions 'maintaining sorted structure,' which is a minor behavior. For a sync/write operation, this is insufficient 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states purpose and a key behavior with no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured, with every word contributing to understanding.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the operation returns, how missing keys are filled (e.g., using the placeholder parameter), whether changes are reversible, or what effects occur on target languages. It is under-specified for a mutating sync 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented. The description does not add any additional semantics or clarify parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already provides thorough parameter documentation.

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 a specific action (synchronize missing translation keys), the scope (across all languages from a source language), and a behavioral detail (maintaining sorted structure). It goes beyond a mere restatement of the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as sync_from_source or sync_all_missing, which likely have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools with similar names (sync_from_source, sync_all_missing) exist, but the description does not mention them or explain when this one is preferred. The only implied usage is that it handles missing keys, but no exclusions or context are given.

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