nexo_opportunity_refresh

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions generating candidates but does not specify whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, what side effects occur, or if any data is modified. The phrase 'from existing evidence' is ambiguous about data sources and consequences.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but this brevity sacrifices critical information. While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It lacks details on return values, side effects, parameter meanings, and appropriate usage contexts, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably use this tool.

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% with no parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (dry_run, sources, limit_per_source, write_report). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type/default information, leaving the agent unclear on how to use these parameters.

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 tool generates Opportunity Orchestrator candidates from existing evidence, specifying a distinct verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling opportunity tools like nexo_opportunity_get or nexo_opportunity_suppress, though it could be more precise about what 'existing evidence' encompasses.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nexo_opportunity_queue or nexo_opportunity_feedback. No contextual conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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