veri_guncelle

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

Annotations already declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), external network access (openWorldHint=true), and idempotency. The description adds genuinely new context: the upstream source (TİTCK), that it rebuilds rather than appends, and a ~4 MB download estimate. It stops short of saying whether existing local data is wiped or whether the rebuild is atomic, which matters for a destructive-style refresh.

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: action plus effect plus the download cost in parentheses. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking it.

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 no-parameter refresh tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and network behavior, the description covers source, effect, and cost. The only gap is failure/partial-refresh behavior, which is minor given the output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing beyond the empty schema to explain. Baseline 4 applies.

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 specific verbs (download, rebuild) and a concrete resource (the local database seeded from TİTCK lists), so an agent knows this is a full data refresh rather than a query. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest sibling veri_durumu, which reports state rather than refreshing it.

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?

Usage is only implied: refresh the dataset when it's stale. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of calling veri_durumu first to check whether a refresh is needed, and no note on whether other tools should be avoided during the rebuild.

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