refresh_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates internal state without destroying data. The description usefully adds that it touches files on disk and refreshes metadata, but says nothing about side effects such as triggering metadata provider calls, re-downloads, or runtime cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and short examples that aid invocation. The examples add practical value rather than filler, though they slightly duplicate the parameter semantics already in the schema.

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 return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with two optional and mutually ambiguous target parameters, the description never states whether one of movie/series is required or what the tool does when neither is given, leaving a real operational gap.

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 both 'movie' and 'series' are already documented as ID-or-title. The description only restates the same targeting via examples and does not clarify how to choose between the two optional parameters or what happens if neither is supplied. Baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource pair ('Refresh metadata and rescan files on disk') and scopes it to 'a series or movie', so an agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like rename_files, search_library, or diagnose_import. The two example utterances reinforce the intent without ambiguity.

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 is only implied: the examples show natural-language phrasings but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_library or rename_files, and no prerequisites (e.g., item must already exist in the library) are given. Adequate but leaves the when-to-use decision to inference.

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