Sync Memory

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

With readOnlyHint=false already declared, the description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotation: conflict resolution keeps both texts, files containing phone numbers, emails, or home-folder paths are skipped and listed rather than transmitted, and a member-run terminal command is surfaced. It never states what a completed run returns or how pulls/pushes are reported, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 verb and scope lead, followed by the conflict rule, the privacy skip rule with its remediation command, and the dryRun hint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or schema.

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 mutation tool with only a readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the write profile, conflict handling, privacy filtering, remediation path, and safe preview mode. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or to interpret a skipped file 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: dryRun is clarified as 'without writing or sending anything' (the schema only says 'change nothing', omitting the network aspect), and 'one project's team memory' frames the project parameter's scope.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sync one project's team memory on this computer with SystemDox') and immediately enumerates the three concrete operations: pull team-changed files, push locally-changed files, keep both texts on conflict. That scope clearly separates it from every sibling, which are all read-only get_* or single-artifact create_* tools.

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 clear context for invocation: it is a two-way sync of team memory files, and dryRun is offered for preview. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but no sibling overlaps with this operation, so the practical gap is small.

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