bg3_refresh

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the default incremental behavior versus force rebuilding regardless of changes, but omits side effects, cost/time, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirement.

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 tight sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded and the parameter detail second. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the single optional parameter is fully covered. The remaining gap is that a mutation-like operation with no annotations gives no safety, cost, or prerequisite context.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only shows an undifferentiated string/null type, so the description is the sole source of meaning. It correctly explains that force takes a layer name or the literal 'all' to bypass change detection, which is material information absent from the schema.

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 a specific verb (re-index) and resource (layers) with a scoping condition (sources changed). Clear enough to distinguish from read-only siblings like bg3_layers, but it never names an alternative or contrasts with related tools such as bg3_add_mod_layer.

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?

Implied usage only: the default handles changed sources and force handles everything else, which hints at when each mode applies. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. mod layers must be loaded first), and no routing to siblings.

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