refresh_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does mention the default behavior (all active linked accounts) but omits important operational details such as whether the refresh is asynchronous, how long it might take, whether it modifies stored data, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for an action-oriented tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional parameter behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the essentials. However, it does not explain what the caller should expect after making the request (e.g., a success status, asynchronous job ID, or error behavior), which is a small but notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 already documents the sole parameter completely (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explicitly stating that omitting account_ids means all active linked accounts will be refreshed, which is a meaningful behavioral clarification not present in the schema.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('request') and resource ('data refresh for linked accounts'), distinguishing it from the many read-only getter siblings. It also clarifies the scope (all active accounts by default), adding precision beyond a simple action statement.

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 usage context is implied: it is the only refresh tool among siblings, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites, leaving the guidance implicit.

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