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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'idempotent' partly restates structured data. The description nonetheless adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is cheap enough that no user confirmation is required, and it duplicates work that other tools trigger implicitly. It does not mention the 'feed must be enabled' precondition, though the schema covers that.

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 with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the caveat about automatic runs follows immediately so the agent reads it before invoking. No restructuring would improve it.

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 single-parameter, idempotent trigger tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything missing from structured data: cost, lack of confirmation, and its redundancy relative to sibling mutations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one parameter (feedId) with 100% schema description coverage, including its source (list_feeds) and a precondition (must be enabled). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Queue a full regeneration of one feed') plus timing ('now'), which cleanly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_feed and list_feeds. It also distinguishes itself from update_feed_settings and the override tools by framing itself as the manual trigger for the same run.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when NOT to call it ('unnecessary after update_feed_settings or override changes, which queue a run automatically') and names the sibling tools responsible for that overlap. This is exactly the routing information an agent needs to avoid redundant runs.

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