content_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one genuinely useful trait: it returns full instructions to follow rather than a summary, which shapes how the agent acts on the output. However, it never says whether the call itself mutates anything, whether account/URL ownership is verified, or what happens with permission failures — the key uncertainties for a tool whose name implies 'refresh'.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral note about executing the returned instructions. Every clause earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool the schema fully documents inputs, and the description covers purpose plus the nature of the return (instruction set to execute), which matters since no output schema exists. It is nearly complete; only the relationship to sibling audit tools is left unstated.

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 100% for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about depth (quick vs full), region, target keyword, or tongue beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource pair — audit a page you own against what currently ranks — and adds the concrete output of change recommendations, so the agent can tell this is a content-refresh audit rather than a traffic or schema tool. It never names any sibling (gsc_audit, competitor_gap, traffic_drop), so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'a page you own' implies the tool applies to existing pages rather than new drafts, which is the usage boundary against article_draft. Beyond that there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the seven siblings, so the agent must infer routing.

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