Record Project Sync Decision

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: canonical mutation, idempotency key reuse policy (same key for retry, new key for changed intent), replay behavior, no human approval needed, and detailed failure mappings. This goes well beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. Some verbosity in details, but every section earns its place. Could be slightly more concise but still efficient.

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 8 parameters (7 required) and an output schema, the description covers usage, behavior, error handling, and postconditions (e.g., follow typed result, review proposals). Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. No gaps identified.

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 only 13%; description provides context for 'action' (preview, skip, snooze) and idempotencyKey reuse, but does not explicitly explain other parameters like scopeType, scopeId, connectionId, or throughVersion. Partial compensation but insufficient for low coverage.

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?

Description explicitly states the action (record a version-bound preview, one-time skip, or 24-hour snooze decision) and what it does not do (never claims delivery or consumption), clearly distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, requirements (authenticated API authority, selected Project), and a 'Then' section for post-action steps, offering comprehensive guidance on when to use versus alternatives.

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