plan_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a local markdown file (an output file), which implies a side effect. However, it does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, handles errors, or if the operation is idempotent. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the name but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences are perfectly concise, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding a prerequisite. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema) and the set of sibling tools (e.g., plan_configure, plan_get), the description is inadequate. It only covers basic purpose and a prerequisite, leaving parameter semantics and behavioral details completely unaddressed.

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 description provides no explanation of the five parameters (path, title, dry_run, page_id, service). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on what each parameter does or how to use them. This is a critical gap for correct tool invocation.

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 exports a Notion plan to a local markdown file, specifying the verb 'export' and resource 'Notion plan (canonical)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like plan_get (retrieves plan data) and plan_migrate (moves plan).

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 mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires plan_configure + NOTION_TOKEN.' However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. The prerequisite is useful but incomplete.

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