Refresh active build

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only/open-world behavior and non-destructive intent. The description adds useful behavioral context: it refreshes from a persisted source, preserves the same selection, and explicitly cannot handle pasted codes. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the critical limitation appears immediately after, earning every word.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides the operation, source types, and an important exclusion. It could add a hint about what happens after refresh, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool is parameterless and the description correctly imposes no parameter expectations.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reload') and resource ('same pinned/selected build'), and names two source identities (PoB file, poe.ninja). The added exclusion of pasted share codes/XML clearly distinguishes this from import-based siblings.

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 clearly conveys when refresh is valid (pinned/selected builds) and when it is not (pasted share codes/XML), directing those cases to re-import. It stops short of naming the sibling import tools explicitly, but the guidance is actionable.

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