Reload overlays

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully reinforces scope ('all of the channel's overlays') and the refresh semantics, but adds little about effect on live viewers or rate limits.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with the analogy earning its place by clarifying the effect. No filler.

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 zero-required-param, single-optional-param tool with no output schema and annotations covering behavior, the description is essentially sufficient. A note on whether other overlays/actions are affected or on latency would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the single optional 'channel' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Reload all of the channel's overlays') clearly, and the browser-source analogy makes the effect unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby overlays_action or overlays_update siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description implies the use case (refreshing displayed overlays) via the analogy, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus overlays_action, overlays_update, or overlays_get, and lists no exclusions. Usage is only inferable.

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