refresh_decision_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is a read-only refresh or writes data, what side effects occur, or whether it requires specific authentication or privileges. 'Refresh' implies a state change but nothing is confirmed.

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, which is concise, but it lacks substance. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary information. The one line does not earn its place because it is too vague to be actionable.

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 has 6 params, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what data is refreshed, how the tool integrates with the sibling tools, or what the output schema returns. This is far below a minimum viable description for such a complex operation.

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?

All 6 parameters have zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them (week, season, scoring, draft_id, league_id, include_players). The description provides no meaning or context for how these inputs affect the refresh operation, leaving the agent completely unguided.

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 identifies a verb ('refresh') and resources ('Sleeper ledger, market signals, licensed evidence'), giving a general sense of the tool's action. However, 'appropriate' is vague and does not clarify what is actually refreshed or how this differs from sibling sync tools. It reads more like a catch-all label than a precise purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sync_league or sync_sleeper_market. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke it. Usage must be inferred from the name and the vague 'appropriate'.

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