Re-querying installed apps

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the asynchronous nature, which is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., overwriting inventory data, triggering scans) or the impact of the 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that state the action and the required permission. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Given the presence of 3 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It lacks explanation of the asynchronous workflow, how to monitor the requery, the role of dry_run, and the distinction from the per-endpoint version.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (org_id, confirm, dry_run), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, but does not contradict or mislead.

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 ('initiates an asynchronous update') and resource ('installed software inventory'). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'action1_requery_installed_software_for_endpoint' by focusing on organization-level scope, and from listing tools by mentioning it's a requery operation.

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 mentions the required permission ('view_installed_software') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing or requerying per endpoint. The context is implied by the tool's name and sibling structure, but not directly stated.

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