tokportal_refresh_account_analytics

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

Annotations indicate not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, so it's a write operation but non-destructive. The description adds some behavioral context about blocked accounts and grandfathered eligibility. However, it does not explain what happens to data during refresh, whether it triggers side effects (e.g., notifications), or clarify rate limits, leaving gaps 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 relatively short at three sentences, covering purpose, options, and restrictions without wordiness. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating behavioral notes from eligibility rules) to improve scanability.

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?

With no output schema and moderate complexity (nested body, 6 sub-parameters), the description covers the main action and blocking conditions but omits what the response contains, whether refresh is asynchronous, and how success is confirmed. This is adequate for a refresh operation but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds a high-level notion of 'forced refresh' and 'post import options' that loosely map to 'force' and 'includePosts', but it does not explicitly link these terms to parameters nor explain the interplay (e.g., how postLimit interacts with forcePosts). For a tool with 3 parameters (one being a nested object with 6 sub-params), this is insufficient additional guidance.

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 states 'Refresh account analytics' and mentions it is a backward-compatible path with options like forced refresh and post import. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings like tokportal_can_refresh_account_analytics or tokportal_refresh_analytics_account, which could be confused for related operations.

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 lists conditions when refresh is blocked (revealed/detached, banned, inactive-Coverage), providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tokportal_can_refresh_account_analytics or tokportal_refresh_analytics_account, leaving the decision partially unclear.

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