Sync an AGY conversation

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds concrete behavioral details: it filters internal thinking/system/checkpoint records and explicitly states it does not call a model. These additions provide useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a crucial clarification ('Does not call a model'). Every word provides value with no redundancy or 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?

Given a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits how parameters affect the sync (e.g., include_all, max_records), what the tool returns, and any error conditions or prerequisites. The lack of this info leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 20% (only project_root described), the description was expected to explain parameters like max_chars, include_all, max_records, and conversation_id. It does not mention any of these, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them or what impact they have on the sync behavior.

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's purpose: it reads the official AGY transcript, filters out internal records, and updates the local mirror. It uses a specific verb ('sync') tied to a resource ('conversation') and distinguishes itself from siblings like antigravity_get_transcript by emphasizing the mirror update and the 'does not call a model' note.

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 implies the tool is used to synchronize the local visible transcript, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like antigravity_get_transcript or antigravity_ask. It offers no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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