Refresh app metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the source is the external store and that console data is only included when connected, which is useful context. It does not disclose whether re-importing overwrites local edits to the listing metadata, which is the primary risk for a non-idempotent re-import — a notable omission given the mutation flag.

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?

One short sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical qualifier is compact rather than padded, so nothing needs cutting, though the phrasing 'live listing / metadata' is slightly loose.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema refresh tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the definition covers what it does, where it pulls from, and the console precondition. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about what happens to existing local metadata or what the caller should do afterward.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains projectId and even points at get_overview as the source. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-import') on a specific resource ('live listing / metadata from the store'), which is clearer than the title's generic 'Refresh app metadata'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from update_project by stressing it pulls from the store rather than editing project fields, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to pull freshest store data into the project, and the parenthetical '(and console when connected)' suggests a precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no reference to alternatives such as update_project, connect_console, or import_file.

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