graph_refresh_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the action of refreshing and requires org-level access, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., cache clearing, asynchronous behavior) or return value structure. The meaning of 'refresh' is ambiguous.

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 a single, concise sentence (10 words) that front-loads the action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to clarify the output format (e.g., list of flow details) or the nature of the refresh action, leaving some ambiguity.

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 only parameter, projectId, is described in the schema as 'The project ID' with 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic information, so it meets the baseline for adequate schema coverage.

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 tool's action: 'Refresh and list all active flows for a project'. It specifies the resource (active flows) and the scope (per project). The requirement for 'org-level access' adds useful context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dev_get_flows' which may not have a refresh action.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it specifies a prerequisite (org-level access), it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like 'graph_load_project_flows' or 'dev_get_flows'.

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