refresh_pivot

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations. It explains that numbers are live formulas, only rows/columns can become stale, and it reports when it did nothing. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the tool's side effects and safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The following paragraphs add valuable context about why the tool matters and when to call it, though some phrasing is slightly elaborate. Overall every sentence contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage context, and no-op behavior. It does not specify exact return format, but the note that it 'reports that it did nothing' gives enough signal for invocation and result interpretation.

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 fully documents the single parameter as 'Ref name of the pivot block.' The description mentions pivots but does not add new semantic detail about the name parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Bring a pivot's rows and columns back in line with its source.' It further clarifies the exact scope of the refresh — only the set of rows and columns, not the NUMBERS which are live formulas. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_pivot or create_pivot.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call it before reading or reporting a pivot that describe_block flagged.' It also reassures about when it is acceptable to call even without known changes: 'Safe and cheap to call when nothing has changed.' This is direct, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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