refresh_partition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a valuable behavioral nuance: refresh is deferred to commit inside an open model transaction. However, it omits side effects, permission requirements, and error handling, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The key information is front-loaded: what it does, when to use it, and a unique behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and a key conditional behavior, but it lacks details on side effects, authorization, and what constitutes a changed slice. It is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'name' has a description). The description does not explain sessionId or table beyond their field names, and while it clarifies that 'name' is the partition, it provides no additional semantics for the other two parameters. This is inadequate given the low 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 uses a specific verb 'Refresh' with a clear resource 'ONE partition' and specifies the refresh type (RefreshType.Full). It also distinguishes itself from refresh_table, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('only one slice changed') and names the alternative (refresh_table), explaining why this tool is preferable ('cheaper'). This meets the highest bar for explicit when/alternatives guidance.

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