refresh_blend

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the two modes and mentions intensity matching drift rate per layer. It does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but for a refresh operation the behavioral description is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: it begins with the core purpose, then explains the two modes with their analogs, and ends with a relevant behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics and mode behaviors adequately. Missing details include what the output looks like (e.g., success message, return values), but the description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds a high-level context (analogy to keyboard shortcuts, 'light .faf + delta .fafm') but does not significantly extend the meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. 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?

The description clearly states the tool is a combined refresh that fires both refresh_faf and refresh_fafm. It distinctly separates the two modes ('blend' vs 'nuke') and relates them to keyboard shortcuts (Cmd+R / Cmd+Shift+R), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from the sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use each mode ('everyday re-ground' vs 'hard reload'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this combined tool over calling refresh_faf or refresh_fafm individually, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions that might require separate calls.

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