update_reflection_captures

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it explains the mechanism (marks every capture dirty, runs the canonical editor rebuild path) and gives the return shape, which no output schema provides. It stops short of saying whether the rebuild is undoable, how long it takes, or whether it requires an editor world to be open.

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 tight sentences: operation and scope first, mechanism second, return shape last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers what it does, its global blast radius, and the return shape. Minor gaps remain: no note on whether prior capture data is destroyed vs recomputed in place, and no runtime/permission caveats, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description introduces no parameter semantics, correctly so, and instead documents the response object rather than inventing input detail.

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 (Rebuilds) plus the exact resource and scope (reflection-capture contents for all captures in the editor world), and even names the underlying editor path. This is plainly distinguishable from the sibling get_reflection_capture_properties / set_reflection_capture_properties / spawn_*_reflection_capture tools, which operate on a single capture.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use text, no prerequisites, and no comparison against alternatives such as set_reflection_capture_properties (targeted edit) or per-capture updates. The global scope ('all captures in the editor world') is stated but the agent is left to infer that this is a bulk refresh to run after capture-affecting changes.

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