reverse-sync

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavior. It mentions detecting and applying edits but does not describe side effects, destructive actions, permissions, or other traits. The description is too minimal.

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 a single sentence, concise but lacking structure. It front-loads the core purpose but does not elaborate or organize information.

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?

With 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is insufficient. It does not explain key aspects like the 'action' parameter, 'target', or how 'detect' and 'apply' work.

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 57%; some parameters have descriptions in schema (e.g., 'only', 'strategy', 'autoSpawn'), but the overall description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 detects and applies IDE edits back to the canonical kit/, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'sync' by specifying the reverse direction (IDE to canonical).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sync', or when to use 'detect' vs 'apply'. The description lacks context for appropriate use cases.

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