refresh_specs

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the refreshed specs land in a user cache that takes precedence over bundled copies, and the 'all 33' scope signals the blast radius of an unscoped call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed immediately by the one operational detail an agent needs (the default scope). No filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the mutation's safety profile is covered by annotations. The description covers cache precedence and default scope well; it could have said where specs are sourced from (network) to justify the openWorldHint, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single param is optional, so the schema already carries the format example. The description's 'Omit api to refresh all 33' adds the default's practical effect (full refresh of 33 specs) which the schema's default=null does not convey.

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 and resource ('Refresh OpenAPI specs') plus the destination ('user cache'), which is unambiguous. Sibling tools (list_endpoints, call_endpoint, download_file) serve unrelated functions, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but the description never contrasts itself with them or explains the bundled-vs-cache relationship scope beyond precedence.

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 'Omit api to refresh all 33' gives a clear default behavior, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus, say, just reading bundled specs, nor any prerequisite or caution about when refreshing is unnecessary. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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