refresh_dp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — the operation is scoped to a single DP and deliberately avoids recalculating the rest of the report — but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or cost/latency. Return values need not be covered because an output schema exists.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the scope-narrowing clause is placed immediately after the core action. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that gap is closed. But with two required, zero-documented parameters, the description should at minimum clarify how the document and data-provider identifiers relate; that omission leaves a real hole for a mutation-style refresh tool.

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 both required parameters (dp_id, webi_doc_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description references 'a Data Provider' generically but never explains that dp_id identifies the provider or that webi_doc_id identifies the containing document, so an agent gets no help resolving either required argument.

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?

States a specific verb ('Refreshes') and resource ('a single Data Provider'), plus a scoping constraint ('without recalculating the rest of the report') that effectively separates it from the sibling refresh_webi_doc. It stops short of naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than being told it.

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 phrase 'without recalculating the rest of the report' implies the intended use case (targeted single-DP refresh rather than a full document recalc), which is useful implied guidance. However, no alternative tool is named and no conditions for when-not-to-use it are given, so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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