Refresh actor items from their source

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful detail beyond that: it lists exactly which fields are overwritten, states that mechanics remain untouched, and explains that items without a resolvable source are listed and left alone. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool.

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 compact and well-ordered: it starts with the problem, states what the tool changes, explicitly lists what it never changes, addresses unresolvable sources, and ends with the key safety instruction. Every sentence contributes useful 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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential mental model: stale copy problem, exact mutation scope, safety boundary, and dryRun workflow. The parameter schema covers the remaining details, so nothing important 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description reinforces the dryRun-first behavior and the default fields but does not add substantive parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 actor items from their source. It clarifies exactly what is pulled (name, image, description) and explicitly excludes mechanics such as levels, uses, and quantity, making it distinct from generic update tools like update-document or manage-actors.

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?

Provides clear context for when this is appropriate: after a compendium has been translated or corrected and actors still contain stale copies. It gives an explicit safety instruction to run dryRun first, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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