refresh_object_ids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about pfSense object IDs being non-persistent array indices that change after deletions, explaining the underlying behavior that motivates the tool's existence. No contradictions with annotations.

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 brief paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second paragraph provides necessary context and usage guidance. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the existing output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It covers what, why, and when, and the output schema handles return values. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema fully describes the endpoint parameter (coverage 100%), and the description reinforces its purpose by noting the tool 're-queries an endpoint'. The phrase adds a slight semantic layer beyond the schema, clarifying that the endpoint is the data source to be refreshed.

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 a specific action ('Refresh object IDs') with the method ('re-querying an endpoint') and the reason ('handles ID changes after deletions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like find_object_by_field or get_* tools, which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Call this before performing update/delete operations to get fresh IDs.' It also explains why, providing clear context without needing alternatives.

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