sync_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely valuable behavioral trait: auto-mode changes replace memory while review-mode changes become pending. However, it omits whether this requires permissions, whether it mutates state immediately, and any rate/scope limits on the check.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the mode behavior second; no filler. The second clause is dense and slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating-in-spirit sync tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two fully undocumented parameters, the description covers the mode semantics but is thin on parameters and on what the check returns. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 0%, so both parameters (due_only, source_id) are undocumented anywhere. The description's word 'now' faintly implies an immediate versus scheduled check, but it never explains due_only or what source_id scopes, leaving the primary parameter ambiguity unaddressed.

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 action ('Check tracked local sources now') on a specific resource, but 'sync' implies write-back while 'check' suggests only inspection, leaving the actual operation ambiguous. It does gesture at the sibling ecosystem via 'auto-mode' vs 'review-mode' but never names a sibling, so an agent cannot cleanly separate it from track_source or review_changes.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to the many siblings (track_source, review_changes, resolve_source_change, watch_status). The mode distinction hints at context but never says when an agent should call this versus resolving changes or checking watch_status.

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