Refresh analytics

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

Annotations already declare it is non-read-only, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that the operation is asynchronous and returns a job id, but says nothing about whether the backfill overwrites existing analytics, how long it takes, or any rate/cost limits for an open-world mutation.

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 tight sentence with the action, async nature, target scope and return value all front-loaded. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 four-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is too thin. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by mentioning the job id, but leaves the postId/accountId relationship and the limit/windowDays semantics undocumented, which is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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 0% across four parameters. The description's 'for a post or account' loosely maps to postId and accountId but never states whether they are mutually exclusive or which takes precedence, and 'limit' and 'windowDays' — clearly meaningful controls on backfill scope — are entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource — 'Enqueue an async analytics backfill' — with a stated scope of 'a post or account' and notes a job id is returned. This implicitly separates it from the read-oriented get_post_analytics/get_account_analytics siblings, but it never names or contrasts with them or with refresh_account.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the many analytics read tools (get_post_analytics, get_account_analytics, get_analytics_summary) or versus the near-identical sibling refresh_account. The agent must infer that 'backfill' means refreshing stale data rather than reading it.

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