auth_sync_to_cloak

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It usefully states 'Raw authentication secrets are never returned,' but omits critical mutation semantics such as whether the target profile is overwritten, how merge/replace affects existing state, or any allowlist requirements. As a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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, two sentences long, with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, and the second adds a key security guarantee. Every word earns its place.

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 three parameters, one enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It lacks explanation of mode semantics, prerequisites like allowlisting, what the extension connection requires, and any return or error behavior. The statement about never returning secrets hints at output but does not cover tool operation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'login state' to site_id and 'Cloak profile' to target_profile, but the mode parameter (merge/replace) is completely unexplained. The description adds minimal beyond the raw parameter names.

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 specific action: 'Capture an allowlisted login state from the connected Chrome extension and import it into an allowlisted Cloak profile.' It identifies both the source and destination resources, making it distinct from siblings like auth_list_sites, auth_verify_cloak, and auth_clear_cloak.

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 conveys the core use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for syncing authentication state but stops short of naming sibling tools or conditions for use.

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