dataflow_refresh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not responsible for the basic safety profile. It adds that the target is a Dataflow Gen2 item and that the action is a 'trigger', which implies an asynchronous operation, but it does not explicitly disclose returns, side effects, or follow-up status checking.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The schema fully covers the two required parameters and the action is simple, but with no output schema, the description leaves the return behavior and asynchronous nature of the refresh unstated. The sibling dataflow_get_refresh_status hints at follow-up, but the description itself does not provide that context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Trigger'), a clear resource ('a Dataflow Gen2 item'), and the action ('refresh'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like dataflow_get_refresh_status and dataflow_delete, and from semantic_model_refresh, which targets a different resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that the refresh is asynchronous, and no indication that status should be tracked via dataflow_get_refresh_status. It only states the action without context for invocation sequencing.

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