sync_connected

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it states the active-connection prerequisite, that it reuses in-memory token/directory/glob, that it includes deletions, the empty-.lua clearing behavior that overrides allow_empty, and the failure mode when no connection exists.

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?

Well-structured with Inputs/Requires/Effects/Returns/Context sections and front-loaded purpose. Some sentences are dense and slightly redundant (deletion behavior restated in the Context paragraph), keeping it short of a 5.

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-value explanation need not be exhaustive, and the description still summarizes 'upload status, file details, and connection status'. Prerequisites, side effects, and edge cases are all covered for a zero-param tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Inputs: none', which is helpful but adds no detail beyond the empty schema.

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+resource: 'Upload the current matching file set using the existing Code Sync connection.' It clearly delineates from siblings sync_directory, force_sync_directory, and connect_sync, which are named and contrasted.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('immediate manual upload after editing an already-connected project'), inspection alternative (sync_status), and when-not ('To change token, folder, glob, or watch, call connect_sync or sync_directory instead'). Nothing is left to inference.

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