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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: no restart is required, unauthorized screens are silently skipped in bulk, and the `screen.edit` permission is required. It stops short of describing latency/return behavior, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the primary routing guidance (the alternatives) immediately after. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Permission requirements, alternatives, and bulk-skip semantics are all covered, giving the agent everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both screenId (from search_screens) and screenIds (bulk, max 200) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the single-vs-bulk split without adding syntax or format detail, 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 concrete verb and resource ('Make one screen or many download and play their current content again, without a restart') and scopes it precisely. An agent can distinguish it from reboot_screen and clear_screen_cache from the description alone, 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('after a change that has not appeared on the screen yet') and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions: reboot_screen for a frozen player, clear_screen_cache for a stuck/broken file. It also discloses bulk-call scoping (screens outside your reach are skipped), leaving nothing to inference.

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