project_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses multi-step mutations: adding documents, copying missing files, moving copies into subfolders, and importing PDFs, and it says the result reports changes and problems. However, it omits permissions, idempotency, broader overwrite behavior beyond the schema's restore parameter, and failure impact.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then explains the sync steps. It is somewhat dense and long, but the clauses about document linking, copying, moving, importing, and the project_add_part handoff each add useful information.

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?

The tool is a complex multi-step mutation and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the main workflow and the add-part fallback, but it lacks usage guidance against sibling tools and does not address prerequisites, permissions, or failure modes.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents path and restore, including defaults and the replacement behavior for restore=true. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: synchronize the user project with the central store. It lists concrete operations such as adding linked documents, copying missing files, moving copies into layout subfolders, and importing new PDFs. It also differentiates part of its role from project_add_part by saying that project_add_part assigns proposed parts, though it does not distinguish itself from project_check or project_status.

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?

Usage is implied by the sync workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of project_check, project_status, or project_availability. The only routing clue is that project_add_part handles assigning a proposed part for a different file.

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