sync_db

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the transfer mechanism, page-level efficiency, safety profile, refusal behavior, overwrite risk, and the .discarded-file behavior via the parameter description. This is unusually complete for an unannotated 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core operation, then adds cost/safety, then the critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers operation, safety, preconditions, failure mode, and the parameter's effect. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it 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?

The input schema already documents discard_local_changes with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining why the parameter matters: without it the sync refuses because pending edits would be overwritten, and with it those edits are set aside.

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 a specific verb ('Replicate'), a concrete resource ('Global.db'), and the mechanism ('sqlite3_rsync over ssh'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like update_fund and finish_provider_review, which are framed as producers of pending edits rather than sync operations.

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 explicitly says when to call ('cheap and safe to call often') and when not to call ('Refuses while local edits... are pending'). It also names the sibling tools that create the conflicting state, giving the agent actionable context for deciding whether to pass discard_local_changes.

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