tokportal_refresh_analytics_account

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It adds eligibility conditions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., state changes, rate limits, success/failure responses). The tool is a write operation ('refresh'), but the description does not confirm what exactly happens or what the return value looks like, which is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences long, which is concise. The first sentence is almost tautological ('Refresh analytics account') but the second sentence adds important eligibility constraints. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. It could be more efficient by dropping the redundant first sentence, but overall it is reasonably concise.

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 3 parameters, a nested body object, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the refresh returns, how the body parameters affect behavior, or any postconditions. Given this complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about the outcome and parameter usage. It covers eligibility but leaves important gaps.

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 adds no additional meaning to the parameters—it only restates the tool's purpose. The body object's six properties have defaults and descriptions in the schema, but the tool description does not explain their semantics or how they affect the refresh operation. It neither improves nor degrades the schema-provided information.

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 elaborates it is 'owner-scoped through Analytics v2'. However, the first sentence is tautological, and the description does not differentiate from the sibling 'tokportal_refresh_account_analytics', which has a similar name and purpose.

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 explicit conditions under which refresh is blocked (revealed/detached, banned, inactive-Coverage accounts) and mentions that permanently grandfathered accounts remain eligible. This gives agents clear when-not-to-use guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use context or comparison to alternative tools like tokportal_can_refresh_account_analytics, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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