create_people_by_id_refresh

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those: it mentions queueing image refreshes and directs the agent to discover body fields from another endpoint. This helps set expectations about asynchronous work and schema discovery.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint and a clean Args list. Every line adds value, with no redundant content.

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?

The description covers the essential call pattern, body requirements, and optional image refresh. With an output schema present, return-value details are unnecessary. Minor gaps remain around side effects and prerequisites, but the provided guidance is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters. id is clarified as id/slug, body is explained as a dynamic payload with a discovery path, and images is described as an optional queue trigger. This is strong compensation for 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?

"Refresh person metadata" is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_movies_by_id_refresh or create_people_by_id_report. The endpoint is also explicitly stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool targets.

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 on when to choose this tool over similar refresh or report tools. It only implies usage from the purpose phrase. The body instruction tells the agent to consult GET/schema, but that is parameter preparation, not tool-selection guidance.

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