source_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: re-ingest only on hash change and background execution. Yet it omits side effects like whether existing data is overwritten, whether it returns immediately or a job ID, and any permission requirements, leaving notable 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 sentences, each earning its place. The first explains the core action and condition, the second clarifies a parameter nuance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the primary refresh workflow and the enrich option, but without an output schema it fails to mention return values, errors, or how the background re-ingest is tracked. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, this leaves moderate gaps.

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. It explains the enrich parameter but leaves source_id and notebook_id undocumented in both schema and description. The required identifiers are not given any semantic context beyond their names, making this insufficient for low 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 clearly specifies the action: re-fetch a source and re-ingest only if the content hash changed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like source_add (new source) and source_enrich (enrichment), making the 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?

It implies when to use this tool (to refresh an existing source) and gives specific guidance for the enrich parameter ('Pass enrich=true to re-enrich private sources after re-ingest'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as source_enrich, so the usage context is clear but excludes alternatives only implicitly.

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