wiki_task_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that files are actually written, names the target path and the side-artifacts (AGENT_HANDOFF.md, TIME_TRAVEL_REPLAY.md), and warns 'NOT a scratchpad'. It omits permissions, overwrite/reversibility behavior, and failure modes, so not a 5.

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 the core action and destination, then usage triggers, then the scratchpad caveat. No filler; every clause carries 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?

For a 7-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description tells an agent what gets written and when to call it, which covers the behavioral core. It leaves the majority of parameters (frames, branches, status, spec semantics) undefined, so it is adequate but 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% across 7 params, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The op values (init|update|handoff|replay) merely restate the schema enum, and spec/frames/status/task_id/branches/project_name are never explained — task_id only appears implicitly via 'TASK-<ID>' in the path.

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 verb (Persist) and resource (task state files) plus the exact target directory, artifacts rendered (AGENT_HANDOFF.md, TIME_TRAVEL_REPLAY.md), and the op set. It never names a sibling to distinguish itself from vfs_mutate/graph_compute, only negates a generic 'scratchpad', so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'USE WHEN: starting work, checkpointing, handing off' gives clear trigger contexts, and 'NOT a scratchpad; it writes real files' bounds when not to treat it casually. No alternative tool is named for those situations, so it is context without explicit routing.

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