Refresh the persona's components

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

Goes beyond the annotations by describing the response contract (NO_CHANGE for identical content, full SUCCESS bundle when content changes) and that replacement is atomic. There is mild tension with idempotentHint=false, since identical input yielding NO_CHANGE reads as idempotent behavior, but the atomic swap of a live activation plausibly explains the non-idempotent hint rather than contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the protocol identifier and the core action, followed by the gating condition and the return contract. Nothing is repeated and every sentence carries distinct 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 mutating, nested-object tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the gating condition and the two possible outcomes, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. It omits prerequisites (e.g. that a prior SUCCESS/NO_CHANGE activation must exist) but the schema's verbatim-copy requirement covers most of that.

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%, including detailed per-field notes on the nested persona object, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, validation or sourcing detail for query, chat_history or current_persona beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (refresh the current role's complete bundle) and adds a delimiting clause ('without choosing an agent') that separates it from agent-selecting siblings like route_and_load or set_flow_persona. The sibling is not named outright, so the differentiation requires a small inference.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use pair: 'Call only when additional skills/implants are needed, never on ordinary continuations.' It does not name an alternative tool to use on ordinary continuations, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully closed.

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