sync_with_central

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the function of each parameter (comment, compact, relinquish_all) and reiterates the tool's scope (workshared only). However, it lacks details on whether the sync is blocking, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., file must be saved). Still, above average disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the main action, uses a clear header for the argument list, and is concise with no wasted words. Every sentence provides value.

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?

Considering the tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage scope, and parameter semantics. It does not mention return value or potential errors, but for a synchronization tool these are often implicit. Completeness is high but not maximal.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: comment is a sync comment visible in the log, compact compacts the central model, and relinquish_all relinquishes borrowed elements and worksets. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states 'Synchronize the active workshared document with central,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'save_document' by noting it only works with workshared documents.

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 provides when to use ('Only works with workshared documents') and when not to ('For non-workshared documents, use save_document instead'), including an alternative tool. This is exemplary guidance.

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