request_reload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a write/mutation), openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it is a POST with no JSON body, and it triggers a server-side reload/recomputation of offloaded data. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects on existing data, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. The core action and the reason (offloaded data forced back) are front-loaded, and the endpoint/method detail is secondary but still efficient.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, the HTTP method, and why it exists. Minor missing details (e.g., async timing) are not critical for correct invocation.

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%: the single `cdate` parameter is fully documented in the schema as a YYYY-MM-DD UTC date. The description only echoes `{cdate}` in the endpoint string without adding format or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific action (reload/recompute a day's data) and the resource (a date's wellness epoch data). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are primarily get/add/create/delete/set operations. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: Garmin offloads older data, so this forces it back. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, but no sibling tool offers a similar reload/recompute function, so alternatives are not needed. The scenario is well implied.

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