source_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses idempotency (re-running updates changed issues without duplicating), the reconciliation process (tombstoning removed issues), and authentication requirements (env vars). This is sufficient for safe operation, though it could explicitly state that it writes to the Vestige store.

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 well-structured, with clear sections for each source and parameter behavior. It is concise without being terse, packing essential information into a few sentences. Minor improvements could be made by reducing redundancy (e.g., the source enum values are described in schema), but overall it is efficient.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, source-specific requirements, idempotency, and the reconcile option. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but given the complexity, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond what the schema provides. It explains how parameters interact (e.g., source='github' requires repo, source='redmine' requires project and env vars), the purpose of max_pages for resumable syncs, and the reconcile option for tombstoning. This extra information helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 states the tool indexes external systems into Vestige as a durable, offline, semantically-searchable index. It provides specific examples for GitHub and Redmine, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other operations like backup, search, or merge.

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 description explains when to use the tool (to sync external sources) and details required environment variables and parameters. It mentions idempotency and the reconcile option, giving context for incremental vs full syncs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools, but the sibling list suggests no similar tool exists.

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