pcg_refresh_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool 'try[ies] known cleanup methods before regeneration' and uses 'known generation/refresh methods,' which gives some insight into its behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the refresh is destructive, what side effects may occur, or what happens on failure.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, parameter semantics, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place, and the most actionable 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, and points to a KB reference, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. It is largely complete for invocation, though a note about side effects or destructive behavior would make it fully self-contained given the absence of annotations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: actor_label as the existing volume identifier, cleanup as pre-regeneration cleanup, and generate as the generation/refresh attempt. This goes meaningfully beyond the raw schema, although it could add more detail about accepted value formats or preconditions.

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 clearly states the action ('Refresh'), the resource ('existing PCG volume'), and the lookup method ('by label or actor name'). This is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as pcg_create_volume.

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 'existing PCG volume' implies this is for updating already-created volumes, and the example gives a concrete invocation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like creating a new volume or checking PCG support.

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