refresh_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that changed files become unreviewed, changed findings become outdated, the review reverts to pending, and prior feedback is discarded. It omits idempotency, permission requirements, and cost, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, then the state consequences, then the prerequisite tool. Every clause earns its place, though the semicolon-chained structure is dense.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical side effects an agent must know before calling. It does not describe what the call returns, but that gap is minor given the destructive-behavior disclosure is thorough.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents analysis_id fully (including its origins in create_analysis/list_analyses). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, 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+resource ('Recompute the frozen diff') and immediately pins the scope ('same repository, mode and refs'), which distinguishes it from create_analysis and update_analysis. It also names the sibling get_review_feedback, so an agent can route without inspecting schemas.

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 a clear triggering condition ('after fixing the code') and a prerequisite action ('read it with get_review_feedback first'), which is strong context. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming a full alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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