Synchronize completed project context

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting that synchronization is limited to files allowed by the route write policy, which is useful for safety. However, with all annotations false, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible, what happens to existing state, or failure conditions, leaving significant gaps for a write operation.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and key constraint. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, yet the description provides only minimal guidance on how to invoke it. It lacks explanations of parameter values, return behavior, or edge cases, making it insufficiently complete for such a complex tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only hints at the purpose of `evidence` ('evidence-backed') and `route_hint` ('route write policy'). The core parameters (project_hint, base_revision, summary, status, next_actions) are left undefined, leaving the agent to guess their exact meaning and format.

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 states a specific action ('compress' a task into evidence-backed project state) and a resource (completed/paused/blocked tasks), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query or bootstrap. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on what 'compress' entails, leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.

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 when to use the tool by specifying task statuses ('completed, paused, or blocked') and mentioning the route write policy, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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