refresh_schema_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and scope but omits side effects (e.g., whether this is immediate, whether it interrupts queries, or what happens to the existing cache beyond being refreshed). This is similar to the update_drive example where lack of permission/reversibility context merited a low score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the conditional parameter behavior. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one optional parameter.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter semantics. It could optionally mention the relationship to get_schema_cache_status or what 'enabled connection' means, but the description is otherwise complete for this simple operation.

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 compensate. The single parameter connection_id is clearly explained: providing it targets one connection, while omitting it (or using null) targets all enabled connections. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema definition.

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 ('schema cache'), and clearly scopes the action: one connection if an ID is given, or every enabled connection if omitted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schema_cache_status (status check) and refresh_document_index (different resource).

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 direct usage guidance by explaining that providing a connection_id refreshes a single connection, while omitting it refreshes all enabled connections. It gives clear context for when to use each mode, though it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives.

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