preview_directory_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses config respect (bwconfig.lua), exclusion of legacy generated helpers, reporting of intentional delete-all behavior, that no token is required, that no local files are changed, and that remote editor state is invisible. That is an unusually complete side-effect and safety profile for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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 plus a labeled 'Context' block, front-loaded with the trailing 'without uploading' qualifier. Efficient, though the phrase 'intentional delete-all behavior' is terse enough to require interpretation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description covers preconditions, side effects, and limitations well. The only substantive gap is parameter semantics, which is the description's weakest area.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description only obliquely touches 'validate' and does not explain 'allow_empty' (which governs delete-all detection) or 'glob_pattern' scoping at all. The one required parameter, directory, is only implied. This leaves most caller-facing knobs undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (preview) plus the resource (directory sync) and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: upload files, sizes, hashes, basename collisions, and Lua validation. The 'without uploading' clause cleanly separates it from sync_directory and force_sync_directory in the sibling list.

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?

'Use before normal directory sync' gives a clear trigger condition, and 'This cannot inspect remote editor state' draws a boundary. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (sync_directory vs force_sync_directory) or say when a preview is unnecessary, so it stops short of 5.

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