sync_spread

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining the actual repeat behavior and its consequence: windows that already hold a line keep it, preventing account/email mismatches. It also discloses that the tool reports assignments and does not type. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core function, the second disambiguates from sync_insert, and the third explains idempotency. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, idempotent assignment tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the key sibling alternative, and the return behavior ('report who got what'). It could clarify edge cases around 'free' and 'ready', but nothing essential is missing.

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 two parameters (set and profiles) are already documented in the schema. The description adds domain context like 'free line' and 'ready window' but does not provide extra parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline 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 states a specific action and resource: pin one free line of a set to each ready window and report who got what. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool sync_insert ('Types nothing; that is sync_insert'), so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It names sync_insert as the alternative and clarifies that this tool does not type, which gives clear routing guidance. It does not discuss other siblings like sync_windows or sync_sets, but the contrast plus the repeat-safety note provides adequate usage context.

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