sync

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and readOnly=false, so the write profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: preview-by-default, and the safety rule that ambiguous/duplicate-looking entries are never written but surfaced for human resolution.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, followed by the safety rule and the invocation detail. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys the outcome semantics (unambiguous items written, ambiguous items listed for human review) and the default/override behavior. It does not describe any return payload structure, which is the only remaining gap.

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% and the schema already documents dry_run's default and meaning. The description reinforces the dry_run:false invocation but adds no new syntax or constraints for 'sections', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action (run a full diff and apply unambiguous items) on a specific resource (CvLAC entries), and contrasts implicitly with the sibling 'diff' by emphasizing that sync applies changes. The domain terms 'missing + toUpdate' are precise. It is clear but never explicitly names the sibling it differs from.

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?

Gives useful behavioral guidance (default preview, dry_run:false to apply, ambiguous items deferred to a human), which implies when to use it over 'diff'. However it never states when to prefer 'diff' or 'update_section', so the agent must infer the routing.

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