figure_library_update_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are cached ('cache age') and that a refresh triggers a network re-fetch, which is meaningful behavioral context. It stops short of saying whether a refresh can fail or block on remote reachability.

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?

One compact sentence with a semicolon separating the report payload from the refresh behavior; the primary purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted. It is arguably slightly too terse for the ambiguity of the 'update_status' name.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the returned information and explains the refresh switch. The remaining gap is disambiguation from sibling status tools, which matters given the crowded namespace.

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 single boolean 'refresh' relies entirely on the description. The phrase 'refresh manually if requested' does convey that setting it forces a fresh fetch instead of the cached value, but omits the default (presumably false) and any latency or failure implications.

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 verb ('Report') and enumerates the exact resource fields returned: running/latest stable SFL versions, cache age, and a release link. This clearly identifies it as a status/version-reporting tool rather than a mutator. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling status tools (network_status, source_status, github_auth_status), so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 trailing clause 'refresh manually if requested' implies when the refresh flag is appropriate, but only conditionally and passively. There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus its status siblings, and no note on cost or when a cached read is preferred over a forced refresh.

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