rastermoves_refiners

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false on a tool that sounds like a list operation, and the description explains why: it "Returns a retained background job" that must be polled, so the non-read-only hint is accounted for. It also discloses the effect posture ("Base effect flags: none") and where conditional effects live, which is context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the follow-up routing. The telegraphic "Base effect flags: none" is terse but earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 no prose, and the description covers the non-obvious lifecycle (retained job, poll danceflow_job_status) plus the effect/permission posture. For a two-parameter listing tool that spawns a job, an agent has what it needs to call it and follow up correctly.

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 50% and the only documented field is the permissions object; the description's "Base effect flags: none" hints at how permissions relate but never says what the empty `arguments` object is for or how to set individual flags. This is the baseline case where the schema does most of the work.

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?

"List canonical pinned refinement workflows" gives a specific verb plus resource and adds the scope qualifier "without downloads", which separates it from rastermoves_download_refiner and rastermoves_refine. The only gap is that it never names those siblings directly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

It does give follow-up routing ("poll danceflow_job_status", "Inspect danceflow_component for conditional inference/download effects"), which is real usage guidance. But it never states when an agent should call this instead of rastermoves_download_refiner or rastermoves_plan_refinement, so the primary selection decision is left to inference.

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