force_reload_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it mentions 'force reload', it does not specify potential side effects (e.g., loss of unsaved changes), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavior beyond the action is not transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a one-line use case, then structured Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return structure. It is slightly lacking in behavioral detail (e.g., destructive nature of 'force reload'), but overall complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, but the description includes an Args section that defines the single parameter 'doc_id' as 'L\'ID du document à recharger' (the ID of the document to reload). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Force le rechargement d'un document' (force reload of a document) and specifies it is useful for inconsistencies or sync problems. This is a specific verb+resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_document, delete_document, and modify_document.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Utile en cas d'incohérences ou de problèmes de synchronisation' (useful in case of inconsistencies or sync problems). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, though the context is clear enough for an agent.

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