spatial_reload_intersect_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it 'changes spatial-service', which is a useful side-effect disclosure. However, it doesn't detail consequences like whether it's safe to rerun or if it causes downtime. The openWorldHint suggests potential side effects not fully described. It adds some value but not comprehensive.

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 that front-loads the action and purpose. It is concise, though the parenthetical '(wiki step 7)' is cryptic and may not help the agent. It is appropriately sized.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and effect. However, the reference to a wiki step and the unclear 'dryRun' mention leave gaps. The agent knows it must set confirm=true to actually execute, but the description doesn't clarify the dryRun reference. Overall, it's mostly complete but has minor ambiguities.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'confirm' with a description. The main description does not add anything about parameters, and actually mentions 'dryRun false' which is not a parameter in the schema, potentially confusing. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description doesn't add value and introduces a minor inconsistency.

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 clearly states the verb 'Reload' and the resource 'intersect configuration', and specifies the purpose: to make new fields answer /intersect. It is distinct from siblings like spatial_intersect (which queries) and spatial_list_fields (which lists), so it's clear what this tool does.

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 usage after adding new fields (so they answer /intersect) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. It references a wiki step, which gives process context but is not explicit about selection criteria. It could be clearer but provides enough context.

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