sync_anki

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Synchronize' implies a two-way data transfer operation, the description doesn't disclose what gets synchronized (decks, media, progress), whether this requires authentication beyond the API key, potential side effects, or what the synchronization process entails. It mentions the API key parameter but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one documenting the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The 'Args' section is efficiently formatted, though it could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative flow.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only one parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and documents the parameter, but doesn't provide enough context about the synchronization behavior, authentication requirements, or relationship to sibling tools. For a synchronization operation, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter (anki_api_key) and indicates it's optional. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates somewhat by documenting the parameter, but doesn't explain what the API key is used for, format requirements, or what happens when it's null. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter is documented.

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 action ('Synchronize') and target resource ('Anki collection with AnkiWeb'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this synchronization tool from sibling tools like 'upload_to_anki' or 'check_anki_connection', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (upload_to_anki, check_anki_connection) that might be related to synchronization or connectivity, but the description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or when this specific synchronization is appropriate.

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