billy_refresh_plan

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

Annotations already signal destructive (destructiveHint: true) and read-write (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds meaningful context: the target state (unexecuted/rejected) and the reason for refreshing (data changes/expiry), plus the recommendation to review again. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not detail side effects (e.g., what exactly is overwritten), but the bar is lower given annotation coverage.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and packs in the state condition and workflow hint. No filler words; every clause adds information. It is optimally concise and structured.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage scenario. However, it omits any explanation of the optional 'verbose' parameter and the exact refresh semantics (what changes are applied). Given the openWorldHint, an agent might need to know if there are side effects beyond the plan refresh. Thus, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not mention the parameters at all. planId is implied to be the proposal ID but is not explicitly stated, and the optional 'verbose' flag is completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from the tool name and 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 states a specific action ('refresh') and a specific resource ('unexecuted/rejected proposal'). It clarifies the condition ('after changed data or expiry') and the intended follow-up ('review it again before execution'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like billy_batch_refresh (batch vs singular) and billy_execute (execution vs refresh).

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 the trigger condition: refresh when a proposal is unexecuted or rejected and data changed or expired. It implies the workflow: refresh then review before execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the condition is clear enough for an agent to decide based on the tool's state. Sibling tools like billy_prepare or billy_execute have different purposes, so the guidance is adequate.

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