create_shows_by_id_refresh

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations, such as the image queue side effect when the 'images' parameter is set, and advises reading the GET/schema endpoint to understand the body fields. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false).

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 purpose, followed by the endpoint and parameter details. No extraneous 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 required parameters, side effects, and prerequisites. It omits whether the refresh is synchronous or asynchronous, but the existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. Overall, it is adequate for a refresh operation.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'id' as the resource slug, 'body' with instruction to consult GET, and 'images' as queuing image refresh. This adds meaningful context that the schema lacks.

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 verb ('Refresh') and resource ('show metadata'), which clearly distinguishes it from the justwatch refresh sibling. It is not a tautology and gives a precise action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_shows_by_id_refresh_justwatch. It only mentions reading the GET endpoint first, which is a prerequisite, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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