sync_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about it being a legacy operation and a path constraint, providing some value beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on overwrite behavior or return values, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, flagging legacy/disabled status, and constraining paths. No filler 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?

For a simple file copy operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides adequate context: clear purpose, key constraints, and availability caveat. It does not mention return values, but the lack of an output schema lowers the burden, and the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces that paths are relative to the repo but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Copy a file from source to target within the same Direct session repo.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like move_file and delete_file. The added context about it being a legacy operation further clarifies its unique role.

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 states when not to use the tool (disabled when directReview.mode=enforce) and a hard constraint (both paths must be inside the session repo_path). It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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