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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature (submitted does not mean refreshed), the need to poll, and the return of per-task receipts and 'truthful admission failures'. It also clarifies the scope ('every active pull-enabled connection') and the necessity to verify results before proceeding.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence contributes: purpose, alias, return type, polling instructions, and verification step. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses clear formatting (REQUIRED, EXAMPLE). Slight redundancy in the alias mention but acceptable.

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 output schema, the description must explain the return value, which it does ('per-task receipts and truthful admission failures'). It also provides the complete workflow: call, poll, verify. Nothing an agent needs to call and use the result correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description adds value by explicitly stating 'REQUIRED: none' and providing an example call `assets_refresh_all({})`, which is unnecessary but helpful for an agent.

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 states a specific verb ('Refresh') and resource ('TikTok asset snapshots') across all active pull-enabled connections, and explicitly names the alias sibling `tiktok_refresh_assets`. This clearly differentiates it from list tools and other operations.

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 provides strong context: it's an alias for `tiktok_refresh_assets`, and it instructs to poll `tasks_get_status` and check `tiktok_get_assets_status` before creation. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the alias and post-conditions make the intended use clear.

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