peaka_refresh_project_metadata

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

With only minimal annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it reveals the operation is long-running, asynchronous, returns immediately, and does not wait for completion. It does not describe possible side effects or failure behavior in detail, but the status-polling instruction mitigates that gap.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: purpose, trigger condition, async behavior, polling path, and projectId resolution. Important constraints are front-loaded before secondary guidance.

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 description is nearly complete: it covers when to use, async behavior, how to track progress, and how to discover the projectId. The main omission is that if catalogId is unknown, it does not tell the agent to use a sibling like peaka_list_catalogs to find it.

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 input schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful extra meaning for projectId by telling the agent to call peaka_list_projects and ask the user if it is unknown, but it does not similarly enrich catalogId.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Refresh', and names the resource, 'project metadata', while also scoping the operation to a specific catalog. This clearly differentiates it from peaka_get_project_metadata and other query/materialized-query siblings.

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 explicitly states when this tool should be used — only when a data source has structurally changed — and instructs the agent to poll peaka_get_metadata_refresh_status afterward. It also gives concrete guidance for resolving projectId via peaka_list_projects, but it does not explicitly point to an alternative for simply reading current metadata.

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