refresh_query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool blocks until refresh completes and returns the mashup engine's error text on failure. It does not, however, mention side effects, permissions, success return shape, or broader implications of refreshing, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the operation, scope, blocking behavior, and failure output without filler. Every phrase 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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the main prerequisite (open workbook), the operation (refresh one query), and one outcome (error text on failure). It leaves the success return value unspecified and does not clarify what 'source' refers to, so it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent with no additional schema context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'source' and 'name' mean explicitly. The phrase 'one query in an open Excel workbook' weakly implies that source identifies the workbook and name identifies the query, but the agent is left to infer the parameter mapping. The description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter docs.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Refresh one query in an open Excel workbook.' It also adds distinguishing behavior by stating it waits for completion and returns error text on failure, which separates it cleanly from siblings like list_queries, evaluate_query, or set_query. There is no ambiguity about the core operation.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'one query in an open Excel workbook,' so an agent can infer this is for refreshing an existing query rather than listing or editing queries. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related alternatives like evaluate_query or set_query, and no exclusionary conditions are stated.

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