create_movies_by_id_refresh_justwatch

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive, idempotent write operation, so the description does not contradict them. It adds the specific target of the write (JustWatch links), but it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what refreshing entails beyond the resource name. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by the endpoint and arguments. Every line earns its place, especially the body-discovery instruction. It could be slightly more explicit about which GET endpoint is 'matching,' but the structure is clean.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema present, this is adequate for making the call: it provides the endpoint, id semantics, and a strategy for constructing the body. It lacks when-to-use guidance and behavioral detail, but those gaps are not fatal to basic 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates meaningfully: it clarifies that id can be an id or slug, and it tells the agent to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover body fields. This prevents guessing on an open 'body' object, though the actual body fields are not enumerated.

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 an exact resource ('movie JustWatch links'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from siblings such as create_movies_by_id_refresh (general movie refresh) and create_shows_by_id_refresh_justwatch (shows, not movies). The POST endpoint line reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_movies_by_id_refresh or create_shows_by_id_refresh_justwatch. The only contextual advice is to read a GET or /schema endpoint before supplying the body, which is about payload construction, not tool selection. Usage context is only implied by the name.

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