yaaif_mcp_server_refresh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not explain side effects such as whether existing tools are replaced, whether the server is queried live, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the server is unavailable.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no wasted wording, and the core operation is communicated efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, so the minimal description is not entirely inadequate. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter explanation, making it sufficient only for the most straightforward invocation.

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% and the description does not clarify what server_id refers to beyond the implied 'registered external MCP server.' It does not state the expected format, where to obtain the ID, or how the ID relates to entries returned by yaaif_mcp_servers_list.

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 states a specific verb ('refresh'), a resource ('tools'), and a scope ('from a registered external MCP server'). It is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from related refresh/redeploy siblings like yaaif_mcp_deployment_redeploy.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when a refresh is needed, or how it differs from yaaif_mcp_deployment_register, yaaif_mcp_deployment_redeploy, or yaaif_skill_refresh.

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