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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a WRITE, is immediate and synchronous (~5-10s), updates cached metadata, and explicitly warns that this legacy proxy has no mutation receipt. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded: action, effect, timing, use case, and a warning all appear within the first two sentences. The required parameter and example are clearly formatted at the end. No sentences are wasted.

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 simple one-parameter write tool, the description covers what, when, how, and the parameter source. The only missing element is what the tool returns (though 'no mutation receipt' implies it does not return a confirmation). This is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It states connection_id is required, is a string UUID, and gives the exact source (mmp_get_state connections[*].id) plus an example invocation. This fully compensates for the absent parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Refresh') and resource ('existing MMP connection') and includes the exact scope ('by connection_id'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like mmp_connect and mmp_delete_connection by stating it refreshes an existing connection rather than creating or deleting one.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for use: 'after the user adds/removes apps or changes Sending Events in AppsFlyer' and 'only on explicit user request.' It does not name alternative tools that might also refresh assets (e.g., assets_refresh_all), but the per-connection scope and user-request requirement make the usage boundary clear.

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