sync_now

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is bidirectional and returns per-peer (pulled, pushed) counts or an error marker. It does not describe side effects other than reconciliation, but annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the bar is lower.

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?

Two crisp sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return shape. Every word earns its place, and the core behavior 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters), the annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the action, directionality, scope, and return behavior. It only lacks alternative-tool routing, which is already penalized in usage_guidelines.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 verb ('Reconcile'), a clear resource ('every configured peer'), and a key qualifier ('right now', 'bidirectional'). It is distinct from sibling tools like sync_status and sync_peers, though it does not explicitly name them to draw the contrast.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Right now' implies an on-demand trigger, but there is no mention of when to prefer sync_status or sync_peers, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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