billy_batch_refresh

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds the specific destructive effect ('clears prior client approval'), which is valuable behavioral detail beyond the generic destructiveHint flag.

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 sentence with two tightly related clauses. The main action and timing are front-loaded, and the destructive warning follows naturally without wasted words.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity tool with annotations covering safety (destructive, not idempotent, open world), the description provides enough operational context: what it does, when to do it, and what side effect to expect. It does not detail return behavior, but no output schema exists and none is strictly needed here.

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%, so the description technically doesn't explain batchId. However, the only parameter is self-evident from its name and UUID format, and the description's 'a batch' reinforces the target. This is adequate but not exemplary.

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 a specific action ('Refresh initial evidence'), a clear object ('a batch'), and a temporal context ('before any stage starts'). It also names a distinctive side effect ('clears prior client approval'), which separates it from sibling batch tools like billy_batch_prepare or billy_refresh_plan.

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 phrase 'before any stage starts' gives explicit usage timing. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing constraint is clear enough context for an agent to select this tool for pre-stage refresh operations.

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