Refresh Store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the refresh is atomic and publishes the rebuilt catalog. However, it doesn't mention whether the store must exist, whether this is destructive to the current catalog, whether it requires writable permissions, or what the output schema contains. The atomicity disclosure is valuable but incomplete.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the key behavioral guarantee (atomic publish). Every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition of the title.

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 a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., store must exist), side effects on the existing catalog, and relationship to sibling tools like set_writable or migrate_store. The atomic publish detail is good, but an agent might not know whether refresh requires the store to be writable or what happens to the old catalog if the rebuild fails.

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 for the single 'name' parameter. The description says 'a store' but does not explicitly state that 'name' identifies which store to refresh, nor does it explain the format or constraints. The parameter is simple and self-evident from the schema, but the description adds no direct parameter meaning.

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 ('refresh') and resource ('store'), and adds the key outcome 'atomically publish the rebuilt catalog.' It distinguishes the action from siblings like add_store, update_store, and remove_store, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The atomic publish detail adds precision beyond a generic 'refresh'.

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 this is the tool to use when you want to rebuild and publish a store's catalog, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update_store or migrate_store. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a simple tool, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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