tokportal_refresh_account_analytics

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with a refresh (mutation) operation. The description adds value by detailing eligibility conditions (blocked states for certain account types) and mentioning backward-compatibility, which helps the agent understand behavioral constraints. No contradiction with 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 brief with three sentences, front-loading the main action. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, backward-compatibility, and eligibility conditions. No waste.

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 there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indication, updated analytics data). It covers input constraints well but omits return behavior. For a complex tool with nested body parameters and multiple options, the description is moderately complete but has a clear gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond listing 'forced refresh and post import options', which are ambiguous references to parameters like 'force', 'includePosts', etc. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool refreshes account analytics, which aligns with the title. It adds specific context about being backward-compatible and supporting forced refresh and post import options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'tokportal_refresh_analytics_account', whose purpose appears similar.

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 explicitly states when refresh is blocked (revealed/detached, banned, or inactive-Coverage accounts) and notes that permanently grandfathered accounts remain eligible. This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when to use this versus the similar sibling 'tokportal_refresh_analytics_account'.

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