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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: synchronous/immediate execution, the ~5-10s latency while AppsFlyer responds, and the notable 'no mutation receipt' caveat for this legacy proxy. It explains what the update touches (cached metadata), which is useful context.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the WRITE/sync warning, then usage, then REQUIRED and EXAMPLE blocks. Efficient and scannable, though the 'Mirror of Meta MCP' line adds little for an agent selecting this tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers action, timing, side effects, prerequisites, required parameter, and an example. The only gap is that it does not state what the caller receives on success beyond noting there is no mutation receipt.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents the required connection_id thoroughly (str, UUID, sourced from mmp_get_state connections[*].id) and provides an example, but the optional connection_context parameter is never mentioned.

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 (refresh) and resource (one existing MMP connection) and details exactly what is re-fetched (AppsFlyer app list + event mappings) and what is updated (cached metadata). This is distinguishable from the other mmp_* siblings like mmp_delete_connection and mmp_get_state.

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 clear triggering context ('Use after the user adds/removes apps or changes Sending Events in AppsFlyer') and an explicit restriction ('only on explicit user request'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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