refresh_specs

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds that the refresh comes from the public registry and that the cache takes precedence over bundled copies, which directly informs the agent of the effect on subsequent tool calls. This goes beyond the annotation baseline and clarifies the behavioral impact.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the entire purpose and key constraint. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler. The description efficiently sets expectations without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For such a simple tool with one optional parameter and a full schema description, the description covers everything needed: what it refreshes, where it refreshes from, and the precedence effect. The output schema exists, and no other behavioral aspects are missing, making the definition complete.

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?

The sole parameter spec_id is fully described in the schema (including an example and the 'omit to refresh all' behavior), so the schema provides complete coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter detail, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action (refresh bundled OpenAPI specs) with a clear source (public registry) and destination (user cache). It also notes the behavioral consequence that the cache takes precedence over bundled copies, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that list, describe, or call endpoints.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you want to update cached spec definitions—but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided, so an agent must infer appropriate usage from the tool name and siblings.

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