missions_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotency (already-filed rounds skipped), conflict behavior (name held by another checkout is reported as an error, never overwritten), and the side-effect distinction of dry_run vs force. This goes well beyond a generic 'syncs missions' statement.

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 critical usage trigger, then covers safety semantics, then parameters. Each sentence adds distinct value and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or tool name.

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 three optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides the trigger, the source tree, idempotency, conflict handling, and parameter semantics. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly 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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: mission (single ID vs empty meaning all), dry_run (list only, post nothing), and force (re-file rounds the daemon already holds). Each parameter gets behavioral meaning beyond its type/default.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it files each frozen round into worker memory after `ethos mission close`, reading the repo's missions tree. This precise workflow makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like `sync_all_registrations` or `remember` even without explicit exclusions.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use after ethos mission close') and explains safe re-run behavior, plus when to use dry_run and force. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use the tool, but the intended context is clear.

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