sr_rescan

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

Annotations already declare it a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, and the description usefully reconciles this by stating nothing is destroyed ("no data change") and no undo record exists. It adds the dry_run preview mechanism, but it never explains idempotency, expected duration, or failure behavior, leaving some tension with destructiveHint=true unaddressed.

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 risk tag and purpose sentence are front-loaded, followed by a compact rationale and an Args block — a good structure. It is slightly repetitive, restating the "no undo" point twice ("no data change, no undo" and "records no undo (there is no prior state to restore)").

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, 3 parameters, and a mutation annotation set, the description covers the essentials: write class, destructiveness, undo, dry-run, and all parameters. What it omits — return shape, whether the rescan is long-running, and retry/idempotency expectations — is minor for a metadata refresh.

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 carries the full burden and does: sr_id is typed as an SR uuid with a cross-reference to sr_list, dry_run is described as a non-destructive preview, and target is explained as an XO target name sourced from config with an omit-for-default behavior.

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 and resource ("Rescan an SR") and immediately qualifies scope with "metadata refresh — no data change, no undo," plus a [WRITE][risk=medium] tag that separates it from the read-only siblings like sr_list/sr_get. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling to route against (e.g., sr_usage_rca), so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is framed as the "lowest-impact write" for refreshing metadata, and the dry_run argument hints at a preview-then-commit workflow. There is no explicit "use this when X / use Y instead" and no exclusions relative to sr_list, sr_get, or sr_usage_rca.

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