refresh_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the 24-hour cache TTL, that refresh happens automatically when stale, and that this forces an out-of-band fetch from Sleeper. It stops short of stating failure behavior or external-API rate limits, which would matter for a network-triggering operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the caveat, then the return note — a good order with no filler. The 'Returns:' block is partly redundant because an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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-param cache-refresh tool, the description covers purpose, timing, and the effect on cached data, and the output schema handles return shape. The only gap is any note on what happens if the upstream Sleeper call fails or is slow.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing to clarify, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 and resource ('Force a refresh of the cached NFL player database from Sleeper'), making the mutation clear. This contrasts cleanly with read-only siblings like search_players, get_player, and get_rosters without needing to name them.

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 says when NOT to use it ('Normally unnecessary: the cache is valid for 24 hours') and when to use it ('after major roster moves or injuries if you suspect the cached data is wrong'). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for an optional maintenance call.

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