refresh_account_usage

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: the operation runs as zero-token /usage jobs (cost disclosure) and can either return immediately or block/wait. However, it omits the return format of a quota refresh, permissions, and what side effects occur on the accounts.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the operational caveats follow, so an agent gets the essentials in one pass.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the action, cost model, and wait behavior adequately. It leaves unclear what the refresh actually returns or whether it mutates stored state, which an agent would want to know.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'one or all accounts' explains that the account parameter is optional and omitting it targets all accounts, and 'return immediately or wait' maps to wait_ms semantics. But no units, default, or maximum (60000) are clarified in the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Refresh live quota for one or all accounts.' An agent can immediately tell this refreshes quota data. It does not name or differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_account_usage, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'For one or all accounts' and 'can return immediately or wait' imply the two usage modes but never state when to use this versus get_account_usage, when full refresh is warranted, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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