sync_project_embeddings_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool is an alias, providing no details about side effects, idempotency, or the actual operations performed. The 'deprecated' tag hints at potential removal but does not explain the behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It succinctly communicates the essential fact (deprecated alias) and points to the target tool, which is appropriate for this kind of alias.

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 deprecated alias, the description provides the core context (it is an alias and deprecated) but lacks explicit guidance to use the non-deprecated sibling or any details about the underlying operation. An agent may need to consult the sibling tool's description to fully understand behavior.

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 schema lists force and project_id with types and defaults, but neither the schema nor the description explain their meaning. Since the tool is an alias, an agent might infer semantics from the sibling tool, but the description alone adds no explanatory value for these parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for sync_project_embeddings, which tells the agent its purpose is to mirror that tool. The tool name itself also hints at the embedding-sync function, but the description does not elaborate on what that function actually does.

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 word 'deprecated' strongly signals that the agent should avoid this tool and use the canonical sync_project_embeddings instead, which is also listed as a sibling. This provides implicit but clear guidance on when not to use the tool, though it could be more explicit.

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