billy_refresh_plan

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

Annotations already disclose the side-effecting nature (destructiveHint=true, idempotent=false). The description adds contextual guidance about when refresh is valid and that review is needed before execution, but it does not describe what happens to the existing plan or whether the refresh replaces it in place.

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 entire description is one tight sentence. It front-loads the action and eligible state, then adds the trigger condition and the intended follow-up, with no 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the object, eligibility, trigger condition, and the fact that the refreshed plan should be reviewed before execution. It omits return/output details and exact status transitions, but the annotations carry the safety profile and the input is trivial.

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 explicitly elaborate on planId. However, with only one required UUID parameter whose name and format are self-explanatory, plus the description's reference to refreshing a plan, the parameter meaning is adequately recoverable.

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 names a specific verb ('refresh') and resource ('unexecuted/rejected proposal'), and adds eligibility conditions ('after changed data or expiry'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like billy_get, billy_execute, and billy_plan, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives clear trigger context: use it when a proposal is unexecuted/rejected and data changed or the plan expired. It also positions the tool as a pre-execution step ('review it again before execution'), but it stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit exclusions.

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