create_movies_by_id_refresh

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

The description does add a behavioral trait by stating 'images: Also queue a refresh of the resource images,' implying asynchronous queuing behavior. Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not disclose other potential side effects or rate limits, but it is consistent with annotations.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, the endpoint path, and a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the guidance to read the matching GET or schema is a practical inclusion without unnecessary verbosity.

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 mutation tool with a complex body parameterached, the description offers a workable strategy by directing the agent to the schema endpoint for field definitions. The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and does not mention that body is required, though the input schema makes that clear. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides a meaningful explanation for each parameter: id as 'id/slug', body as a payload requiring external reference, and images as a queue flag. The body explanation is somewhat indirect—pointing to GET/schema rather than listing fields—but it does add value beyond the bare schema.

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 clear action—'Refresh movie metadata'—with a specific resource (movies). It is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool create_movies_by_id_refresh_justwatch, leaving that distinction to the name and inference.

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 only usage guidance is 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects,' which is a prerequisite for constructing the body param, not a when-to-use guideline. There is no mention of when to choose this tool over refresh_justwatch or other refresh variants, so selection criteria are absent.

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