baasix_reload_permissions

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

There are no annotations, so the description alone must disclose side effects, required privileges, and whether this invalidates or rebuilds the cache. It only states the action and says nothing about consequences, idempotency, authentication requirements, or impact on other sessions. This is a significant gap for an administrative action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as compact as the tool's low parameter complexity allows.

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?

Despite low signature complexity, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not say what a successful reload looks like or when it should be used. For a state-affecting administrative action, a one-phrase description is not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description needs to add about parameters. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.

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 names a specific action (reload) and a specific resource (the permission cache), which distinguishes it from permission CRUD siblings like list_permissions or update_permissions. It is not merely a restatement of the name because it clarifies the target is the cache rather than the permission records themselves.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as update_permissions, refresh_auth, and get_permissions, an agent has no way to know that this should be called after permission changes or when stale cache is suspected. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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