refresh_data_registry_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the goal is avoiding an editor restart and that the call is state-forcing. However it never explains why a 'refresh' is flagged destructive and non-idempotent, leaving the agent with no idea what could be lost by calling it repeatedly or at the wrong time.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and effect, then the trigger condition, then the return shape. No restatement of the name or filler; every clause carries information.

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, the description correctly supplies the return shape ({ refreshed: bool }). Combined with the trigger and the no-restart benefit, an agent has enough to call it, though it could have clarified what refreshed=false implies (e.g. no registry present).

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no schema-to-description gap. The description correctly says nothing about arguments, which is the right behavior for a no-arg operation.

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 action ('Force UDataRegistrySubsystem::RefreshRegistryMap()') plus the observable effect: the subsystem re-reads its registry map. The effect-and-trigger phrasing lets an agent separate it from sibling data-registry tools like initialize_data_registry, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 an explicit calling condition: 'Call this after editing registry assets (e.g. add/remove sources, change registry_type)'. That is a real when-to-use rule with concrete examples, but it names no alternative tool and no case where this should not be called.

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