refresh_webi_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that prompt answers can be supplied at refresh time, but omits key behaviors for a mutation-style call: whether the refresh persists the document, permission requirements, and whether unprompted documents refresh silently.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the example earns its length because the schema itself is opaque. Minor slack only in that the example could be tighter.

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 described. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description should say more about persistence, permissions, and where prompt IDs come from; as written it covers the action and one input shape but not the full call 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for the opaque `parameters` anyOf array by giving a concrete payload example with both scalar and multi-value entries. `webi_doc_id` and the origin of prompt IDs (get_doc_parameters/get_parameter_lov) remain unexplained.

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 and resource ('Refreshes a Web Intelligence document'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling refresh_dp (data-provider refresh) or clarify scope relative to save_webi_doc, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to refresh a document versus refresh_dp, nor whether the document must be opened/locked first. The conditional prompt case is mentioned, but that is behavioral detail rather than routing guidance.

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