typora_reload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: standalone mode refuses location.reload, which is a failure mode not expressible in annotations. However, it never says what 'destructive' means here (e.g. unsaved editor state being discarded), leaving the biggest behavioral question unanswered.

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 with zero filler; the action and its precondition come first, the alternative and failure mode second. Every clause carries decision-relevant 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?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool the description covers the routing decision well, but it omits the ignoreCache parameter entirely and never states the user-visible consequence of a reload (lost unsaved content), which matters given destructiveHint=true. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 50%: targetId is documented in the schema, but ignoreCache has no description anywhere. The tool description mentions neither parameter, so it does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap or explain what targetId selection means in practice.

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 ('Reload the selected Typora renderer') and clearly separates itself from typora_restart by naming the latter for MCP-managed instances. The purpose is unambiguous, though 'selected renderer' relies on the reader knowing how selection works (typora_status/targetId).

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 precondition ('when the selected backend supports safe renderer reload'), an explicit failure case ('Standalone mode refuses location.reload'), and routes the agent to the correct alternative ('use typora_restart for MCP-managed instances'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance an agent needs to pick between reload and restart.

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