sync_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool writes into a local archive and that the operation is incremental, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, network/auth requirements, whether the call blocks for long exports, or what happens when the chat is not found — meaningful gaps for a sync/mutation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the two parameters in order of importance. The incremental-sync rule is stated twice in slightly different words ("недостающие старые сообщения догружаются" vs. "догружаются только новые сообщения"), a small redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter sync tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the incremental-vs-full-export behavior. Only failure modes and runtime/authorization expectations are 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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: chat is defined as an id, @username, or name fragment, and days is defined as the depth of history to keep, including the default semantics when omitted. Minor gaps remain (no accepted format for days, no edge-case behavior), so not a 5.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it pulls new chat messages into the local archive ("Догружает новые сообщения чата в локальный архив"). The sync/archive role is clearly distinct from send_message or read_files, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains the effect of supplying vs. omitting days (full export for a new chat, incremental for an already-loaded one), which is genuinely useful decision guidance for the days argument. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_dialogs or fetch_media, and no preconditions are stated.

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