reload_data_tables

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: dependency order, module skipping, partial deployment success, stop_on_error behavior, and delay rationale. It lacks explicit mention of output format (though output schema exists) or idempotency/safety.

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 fairly long but well-structured with parameter explanations and rationale. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but efficient overall.

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?

Given the complexity (3 params, output schema exists, many siblings), the description covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and edge cases thoroughly. It lacks explicit prerequisites or return value details, but the output schema likely covers returns.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: targets (optional whitelist, default null), stop_on_error (default False with example), delay_ms_between (default 100ms with reasoning). All semantics are clear.

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 'Run the full chain of OpenSIPS data-table reloads' with the verb 'run' and resource 'full chain', and distinguishes from sibling single-module reloads by emphasizing dependency order and batch execution.

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 explains the tool's purpose as a full-chain reload and covers parameter guidance (targets whitelist, stop_on_error, delay_ms_between). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative single-module reloads (e.g., dispatcher_reload) 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.