recalculate_financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool 'Clears staleness on the business case', indicating a state change. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like auth requirements, potential side effects beyond staleness clearing, or whether it modifies data persistently. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, both essential. The first sentence defines the core function, and the second provides usage context and a side effect. No unnecessary words or redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description could briefly mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated financials or status). However, for a recalculation tool in a business context, the description covers the main inputs and purpose. It is fairly complete for its simplicity, but a hint about the output would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it implies that blueprintId is used to identify the current blueprint and that customerOrgId might be needed for partner access. This is consistent with the schema but does not provide new semantics beyond what is already stated.

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 action 'Recalculate business case financials', the resource 'business case financials', and the source data 'from current blueprint and profile data'. It also specifies the outcomes: 'refresh ROI projections, labor savings, and payback period', which differentiates it from siblings like get_business_case or update_business_case.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after updating the blueprint' and lists the refreshed fields, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the positive context is strong enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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