sync_documentation

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adequately describes the action of creating/updating documentation and the detection of code changes, but does not disclose whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or what happens to existing documentation not covered by the changes.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second adds specific capabilities. Front-loaded with key action.

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 no output schema, description does not explain return values, which is acceptable. It covers purpose and parameters well. Missing mention of git prerequisites or workspace setup, but overall sufficient for a tool with 3 params and simple output.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: 'based on code changes', 'auto-detect from git' for filePaths, and explanation of updateMode. This helps agents understand parameter usage beyond dry definitions.

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 the verb 'creates or updates' and the resource 'documentation', with a clear scope 'based on code changes'. It provides specific details like 'detects new methods, changed signatures, and generates doc stubs', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_docs or search_docs.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for code changes, but doesn't mention when not to use or provide any exclusion criteria or mention of sibling tools like verify_docs or check_delta.

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