sync_now

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral details: opt-in via frontmatter, name matching requirement, consequences of renaming, folder mirroring behavior, attachment handling, and a clear statement that 'Deletions never propagate.' This goes beyond typical tool descriptions.

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 concise yet comprehensive, opening with a succinct high-level summary ('One pass over a folder of .md files, one direction per file') and then adding necessary detail without redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information about sync behavior, edge cases, or options.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: sync direction, frontmatter control, name matching, failure reporting, folder mirroring, and deletion policy. It leaves no major behavioral gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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%, with each parameter already well-described. The tool description adds process context but not additional per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides. For example, the description explains the folder parameter's behavior, but the schema already states that notes without a file are created as pull files.

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's primary function: 'One pass over a folder of .md files, one direction per file.' It specifies the resource (folder of .md files) and verb (sync) with operational detail, and the frontmatter-driven direction distinguishes it from siblings like get_note or update_note.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., to sync markdown files with Notes) and even explains the folder mirroring use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sync_status, which might be the alternative for checking sync state.

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