yaaif_agent_spec_sync_from_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior (overwrites) and mentions preview as a safety step. However, it doesn't cover reversibility, permission requirements, or failure modes, which would be expected for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 concise sentences that get to the point, front-loading the purpose and then adding usage guidance. No fluff, but the structure could be slightly improved by separating the overwrite warning from the preview instruction.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It mentions preview but doesn't explain how to obtain preview_id or what expected_version is for. Missing parameter meanings and return behavior make it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about spec_id, expected_version, or preview_id. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics and fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 it adopts live catalog objects into the Scenario and overwrites Scenario-owned names and workflow graphs. It names a sibling (yaaif_agent_spec_sync_preview) for preview, which helps differentiate, though it doesn't explicitly mention the reverse-direction sibling (sync_to_objects). The verb 'Adopt' and resource are specific enough.

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?

It explicitly instructs to preview with yaaif_agent_spec_sync_preview before applying, and notes it is not the default finish step after create/bind. This gives actionable guidance on when to use it, though it doesn't contrast with all related tools like sync_to_objects or adopt.

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