refresh_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the key conditional behavior (updates all connections if none specified) and the fact that it re-reads from the source database. It doesn't describe potential side effects, whether the schema cache is overwritten, or any required permissions.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core action, the second explains the conditional behavior, and the third gives a practical trigger scenario. Everything earns its place.

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 optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the action, the condition, and when to use it. Nothing critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema provides no parameter description and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this by explaining that omitting connection refreshes all connections, giving meaning to the optional parameter. It doesn't specify format or examples, but for a single optional string this is sufficient.

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 action ('refresh connection schema') and the resource being refreshed (tables, columns, FKs from source DB A3). It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling get_schema.

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 a clear usage scenario: useful when tables/columns were added after server start. It also explains the conditional behavior when connection is omitted. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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