tokportal_refresh_analytics_account

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the refresh will be blocked for certain account states, and permanantly grandfathered accounts remain eligible. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful conditions that the agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Two compact sentences. The first states the action, the second lists key eligibility constraints. No unnecessary words, and the critical information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 a nested body object with several options, and no output schema. While the description does not explain body semantics, it covers the most important constraint (blocking conditions) which is crucial for successful invocation. For a mutation that may fail under certain account states, this is adequate, though it could benefit from a brief reference to the body parameters.

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% per context signals, so the schema already describes each parameter (id, body, idempotency_key). However, the description adds no details about the body sub-properties (force, postLimit, etc.) or their defaults. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description offers no extra meaning.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Refreshes an owner-scoped account through Analytics v2.' It clearly identifies the resource (analytics account) and the specific scope. It also distinguishes from siblings like tokportal_get_analytics_account (retrieval) and tokportal_refresh_account_analytics (possibly a different variant) by mentioning 'owner-scoped' and 'Analytics v2.'

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 usage constraints by listing blocking conditions ('revealed/detached, banned or inactive-Coverage accounts'), which implicitly tells when not to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention the alternative tokportal_can_refresh_account_analytics, but the blocking conditions suggest a pre-check. This is clear enough for most cases.

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