design_table_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive (overwrites data), idempotent, or requires specific permissions. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer side effects.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it fails to earn its place by not addressing parameter semantics or usage context. It omits essential information that could have been included without verbosity.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the 'refresh' operation does to existing data, how long it might take, or what the expected outcome is. An agent cannot use this tool reliably based solely on this description.

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 0% and the description does not mention the only parameter ('resourceId') at all. The agent has no guidance on what value to provide, such as expected format or where to obtain it. This is a critical gap.

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 action (refresh) and the resource (design table data) with a specific data source (SQL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'design_table_create' (create) and 'vba_design_table' (VBA-based), though it could be more precise about what 'refresh' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'design_table_create' or 'vba_design_table'), nor are there any prerequisites or conditions for refreshing. The description is purely declarative.

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