tokportal_refresh_account_analytics

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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false – this is thin. The description compensates well by disclosing blocking conditions (revealed/detached, banned, inactive-Coverage), eligibility for grandfathered accounts, support for forced refresh and post import options. It also mentions idempotency_key parameter behavior implicitly. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

At 3 sentences, the description is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct information: what it does, key capabilities, and blocking conditions. No wasted words. However, the term 'post import options' is vague without defining what it means in context.

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 the tool has nested objects (body has 6 sub-fields), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the main refresh action and constraints but omits important details: return values, side effects (e.g., does it invalidate cached analytics?), and whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous. For a mutation tool with no output schema, more completeness would be expected.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents (force, postLimit, forcePosts, includePosts, etc.). The idempotency_key is not mentioned in the description at all. No additional value added.

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 it refreshes account analytics, and identifies itself as backward-compatible. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tokportal_get_account_analytics (which likely reads, not refreshes) and tokportal_can_refresh_account_analytics (which checks eligibility). The forced refresh and post import options add specificity.

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 useful blocking conditions (revealed/detached, banned, inactive-Coverage accounts) and eligibility for permanently grandfathered accounts. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this vs. alternative tools like tokportal_refresh_analytics_account, nor does it state when not to use it or mention any required prerequisites.

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