proj_force_recompile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real side effects: dirty docs are flushed and the compile cache is invalidated, plus a verification affordance via prev/new compile tick. It does not say whether the flush mutates user documents, how long the operation takes, or what preconditions (open project, loaded sheets) are required.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the use case, then the return shape. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; no filler or restated title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the explicit 'Returns:' block is partly redundant, but it usefully names the tick fields an agent should check to confirm the recompile took effect. For a no-argument, low-complexity tool this is essentially complete; only the relationship to proj_compile and proj_get_compile_freshness is left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly does not invent arguments.

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 chain (flush dirty docs, invalidate compile cache, recompile) on a specific resource, and the 'force'/cache-invalidation framing distinguishes it from the plain proj_compile sibling. It never names proj_compile or proj_get_compile_freshness explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 concrete trigger: 'when you need a guaranteed-fresh netlist, e.g. immediately before re-running a connectivity check the user has disputed.' That is a clear context for use. It offers no exclusion or cost guidance (when NOT to force a recompile, or why one might prefer proj_compile), so it stops short of a full when/when-not pair.

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