Refresh external objects mentioned by an issue

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false) indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description only adds the HTTP method (POST) and auth class, without explaining side effects, data changes, or network implications. Transparency is minimal beyond 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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then adds operation details. No wasted words, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, a nested body, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'refresh' entails, how it affects the issue, or what the output contains. The auth class is useful, but overall the description is incomplete for effective use.

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%. The description adds no explanation of the parameters (id, objectIds). The schema itself defines objectIds as an array of UUIDs and id as a string, but the description provides no additional meaning or context for these parameters.

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 title 'Refresh external objects mentioned by an issue' and description clearly state the action (refresh) and the resource (external objects of an issue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_external_objects and pc_get_issues_by_id_external_object_summary by specifying the POST operation for refreshing.

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 mentions the authorization class 'board_or_agent', giving some context on who can use it. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, such as when refreshing is needed vs. retrieving, or any prerequisites or alternative tools.

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