sync_parameter_layout

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

The description discloses key behaviors: dropping cells for missing parameters, appending at next free slot, and returning a {added, removed} summary. It also explains the internal usage by other tools. Without annotations, this provides sufficient transparency, though it could mention if the operation modifies the report file directly.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then details, usage guidance, no-op condition, and return value. It is slightly verbose but packs necessary information without unnecessary fluff.

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 specialized tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, behavior, use case, and return value. It is complete and answers likely questions an agent might have about when and why to use it.

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 coverage is 100% with only one parameter (path) described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's description, so baseline score of 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 uses specific verbs like 'bring into sync', 'drops', 'appends', clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like add_parameter by noting they call this internally, clarifying its specific 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 explicitly states the primary use case (repairing legacy reports before v0.3.0) and notes the no-op condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though it is implied that it's not needed for normal operations.

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