Refresh Credit Cache

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the 'server-side' and 'force' aspects, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the cache is cleared, recomputed, or if there are rate limits. It provides minimal value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, concise sentence that fully communicates the purpose without any redundancy. It is properly front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the annotations, the description is almost complete. It would benefit from a note on when a refresh is appropriate, but the current text is sufficient for most agents.

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 100% (the only parameter, x_server_token, is described as 'Optional server-to-server auth token'). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action: 'Force a refresh of the server-side credit-cost cache.' This uses a specific verb ('refresh') and a specific resource ('server-side credit-cost cache'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from read-only siblings like lyzr_get_cached_credits.

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 the usage context: use this tool when you need to force a refresh of the credit-cost cache. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a low-complexity utility.

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