refresh_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context ('Required after... for data and columns to appear') and explains the table vs whole-model scope. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, the meaning of full vs calculate-only, or potential long-running nature, leaving gaps for a refresh operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the core functionality and a key usage context. It is front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and every word earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 refresh tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, scope, and one important prerequisite. It does not explain the 'full' parameter (though the schema does) or return behavior, but the essential information needed to invoke the tool is present. Slightly more context about when to use full versus false would improve completeness.

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 67%, covering 'full' and 'table'. The description reinforces the table omission behavior, but adds little beyond the schema. The required sessionId parameter is undocumented but self-explanatory. Given moderate coverage, the description provides only marginal added value, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Refresh') and the resource ('one table or the whole model'), with explicit scope and a prerequisite context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is required after add_table_from_m / set_partition_m, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Required after add_table_from_m / set_partition_m for data and columns to appear.' This tells the agent when this tool is necessary, though it does not mention alternatives like refresh_partition or when not to use it. Still, the context is clear and actionable.

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