trw_instructions_sync

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains what the tool does (renders guidance into instruction files) and what it does not do (promote learnings). It also mentions the output format. However, it does not clarify whether it overwrites or merges existing content, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Well-structured: a summary sentence, bullet-pointed use cases, a behavioral paragraph, and output format. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool's purpose (sync multiple instruction files) and 3 parameters fully documented, the description covers use cases, behavior, and output. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing parameters (e.g., 'auto' client detection, scope for root vs sub), which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 syncs TRW protocol and ceremony guidance into the client's instruction file. It uses a specific verb ('Sync') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like trw_session_start by noting that learnings are not promoted.

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?

Explicitly lists three 'Use when' scenarios: onboarding new project, after changing protocol template, and when switching IDE clients. Also states when not to use (for learning promotion) and directs to trw_session_start for that purpose.

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