tokportal_refresh_analytics_account

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing specific blocked states (revealed/detached, banned, inactive-Coverage) and grandfathering exceptions, which are not in annotations. However, it does not explain side effects, return behavior, or permission requirements, so the bar is only partially met.

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 short (three sentences) but contains redundancy: the first sentence 'Refresh analytics account' restates the title. The second and third sentences provide useful information but could be merged. The structure is acceptable but not optimally efficient.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the refresh returns or accomplishes, but it does not. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., user must own the account, account must exist) and fails to clarify the role of the nested body parameters. Given the moderate complexity (3 params, nested body, conditions), the description leaves significant gaps in completeness.

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 description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the purpose of body fields like 'force', 'postLimit', or 'idempotency_key'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb 'Refresh' and the resource 'analytics account', and specifies it is owner-scoped and uses Analytics v2. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tokportal_can_refresh_account_analytics' (eligibility check) and 'tokportal_get_analytics_account' (read-only). The blocked conditions further clarify scope.

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 provides some context by listing blocked account states (revealed/detached, banned, inactive-Coverage) and eligibility of grandfathered accounts, which implicitly advises when the tool may fail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between the two similar refresh tools ('tokportal_refresh_analytics_account' vs 'tokportal_refresh_account_analytics') or suggest when to use the 'can_refresh' check first. Guidance is present but incomplete.

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