Refresh Account

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

Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false, the description reveals critical behavioral traits: the operation is asynchronous (returns a job ID), requires polling, may trigger MFA, and must be polled until SuccessFlag is true or false. This goes well beyond the simple mutation flag and prepares the agent for the non-immediate nature of the operation.

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 three sentences long and every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and return, the second gives critical polling and MFA instructions, and the third defines the completion condition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary caveats without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the action, the returned job ID, the polling workflow, MFA handling, and the termination condition. It effectively references sibling tools (poll_job, answer_mfa) to complete the process, making it self-sufficient 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?

The schema already covers accountId with a description 'Account ID to refresh,' and the description does not add extra detail about the parameter. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—no additional semantic value is provided beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource: 'Trigger a fresh data pull from the bank for a specific account.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on refreshing an existing account rather than creating or managing accounts. The explicit mention of returning a job ID further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 description provides strong usage guidance by instructing the agent to poll the job with poll_job every 4-5 seconds, and to use answer_mfa if MFA fields appear. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by specifying 'for a specific account' and comparing to a new connection, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_connection. The polling and MFA instructions are clear and actionable.

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