peaka_refresh_cache_incremental

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that it updates an existing cache and only fetches new/changed rows, which implies no destructive changes. No contradictions. However, it does not discuss error handling or what happens if the cache does not exist, which could be improved.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a short workflow paragraph. Every sentence adds value—purpose, source of cacheId, and projectId resolution. No redundant or vague language.

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 tool has no output schema, the description could clarify the return value (e.g., success indicator or updated cache status). However, parameters are fully covered, and the workflow context is complete. The tool's purpose is straightforward, and missing output details are a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with standard descriptions. The description adds value by specifying that cacheId comes from peaka_get_cache_statuses and providing a workflow to obtain projectId via peaka_list_projects if unknown. This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions, giving the agent actionable context.

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 that the tool triggers an incremental update on an existing cache, fetching only new/changed rows. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool peaka_refresh_cache_full by noting it is much faster. The verb 'trigger' and resource 'cache incremental update' are specific and unambiguous.

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 tells when to use (for fast incremental updates) and gives preconditions: use the cacheId from peaka_get_cache_statuses. It provides a workflow: if projectId unknown, call peaka_list_projects and ask the user. This guides the agent in correct invocation, including the need to retain the projectId for subsequent calls.

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