Every cyclic p-group is a Sylow p-subgroup of a finite group whose distinct Sylow p-subgroups intersect trivially in pairs (and there is at least one pair).
For instance, let q be a prime congruent to 1 mod p and then the group $\operatorname{AGL}\left(1, q\right)$ is such a group. This is the normalizer of a Sylow q-subgroup in the symmetric group on q points and can be described as the group of affine transformations of a line over the field of q elements:
$$\operatorname{AGL}\left(1, q\right) = \left\{ x \mapsto ax + b \mid a, b \in \mathbb{Z}/q\mathbb{Z}, ~~a \ne 0 \right\}.$$
Its Sylow p-subgroups are the cyclic subgroups Pb generated by x → zx + b where z is a primitive pth root of unity in Z/qZ. They intersect trivially, since Pb leaves b/(1−z) alone, but moves every other point.
I can handle a few other cases (quaternion, elementary abelian), but I haven't found a (correct) general method. I was a little surprised semi-direct products with faithful (even irreducible) modules was insufficient.
Which p-groups are Sylow p-subgroups of finite groups whose distinct Sylow p-subgroups intersect trivially in pairs, and there is at least one pair?
In other words, though every pair of distinct Sylow p-subgroups of P intersects trivially, it does so vacuously with no pairs. For each p-group P, I want a finite group G with more than one Sylow p-subgroup $P$ where $P\cap P^g$ in $\{ 1, P \}$ for all $g\in G$.
Your question can be rephrased as
Aside: T.I. stands for "trivial intersection". A trivial intersection set is one that intersects each of its conjugates fully or trivially. These have been actively studied, because groups that have T.I. sets exhibit some interesting representation theoretic behaviour (see e.g. Chapter 7 of Isaacs). I am sure that Jack knows all this, I am writing it for the benefit of other readers. [/Aside]
I believe that Lemma 1.1, and Propositions 1.2 and 1.3 in this paper answer your question. Essentially, either $P$ is cyclic, or generalised quaternion, or the question is reduced to T.I. Sylow $p$-subgroups of simple groups by virtue of Proposition 1.2 (b), (d), and (h). Namely, (h) and (b) say that usually $P\leq U$, and then (d) reduces everything to simple groups (you quotient out the $p'$-core, so the isomorphism class of the $p$-Sylow doesn't change). At that point, one just has to go through the classification, which is done in Proposition 1.3.