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

The description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: existing tools keep exposure, new operations arrive UNEXPOSED, and removed operations disappear. This aligns with idempotentHint and destructiveHint while conveying the opt-in policy that annotations alone do not provide.

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 four sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, stability guarantee, opt-in behavior, and usage trigger. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

With one fully documented parameter and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description supplies the missing context: when to call it and exactly what happens to existing, new, and removed tool definitions. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, server_id, with 'The server id to refresh.' The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Re-read a server's source spec and refresh its tool list.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools create_server, get_server, and list_my_servers by focusing on refreshing after upstream changes.

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 gives explicit triggers: 'Use when an API has shipped new endpoints, or when a server's tools look out of date.' It also explains the safety semantics around existing and new tools, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare against alternatives.

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