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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is already surfaced; the description adds only the re-evaluation trigger and hints at caching via 'recently analyzed'. It does not say that existing analysis is overwritten, whether it is idempotent, or what it costs — context that would be valuable given the destructive hint.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and its output composition come first, the when-to-use condition second. No filler, no repetition of the title, and it is front-loaded correctly.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what the analysis yields, and when to invoke it. The remaining gap — differentiating from refresh_agent_insights and stating overwrite/reversibility behavior — is real but not fatal given the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 100%, so all three parameters (force, agentId, customerId) are already documented, including the force default and the superadmin-only scoping note. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Refresh) and resource (structural analysis of an agent's system prompt), and enumerates the analysis contents (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, quality metrics). However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling refresh_agent_insights, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Gives a trigger condition ('when the agent's prompt has changed or you need to re-evaluate its structure'), which is useful implied-usage guidance. But it never contrasts with the obvious alternatives (refresh_agent_insights, analyze_agent) or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to guess which refresh tool applies.

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