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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: it returns contact state, it can synchronize verified account identity into existing contact records (explaining the write nature), and friendship grants no Blender access. However, it never clarifies what the destructiveHint actually puts at risk or what the refresh overwrites, which is the key open question for a destructive-flagged tool.

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?

Four short sentences that front-load what the tool does, then add permissions and routing guidance. Each sentence carries distinct information, though 'Friendship itself grants no Blender access' sits awkwardly between the write-behavior note and the routing instruction.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it refreshes, that it returns contact state, the side effect on contact records, and the preferred alternative. Only the scope of the destructive behavior remains unaddressed, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing the action as a panel refresh.

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: refreshes the Blender Bridge panel's friend list and pending friend invitations. It also names the sibling tool (list_friends) that serves the equivalent non-panel purpose, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent away from this tool: 'Models should use list_friends rather than this panel adapter.' That is a clear when-not condition with a named alternative, not an implied preference.

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