Refresh VGC metagame data

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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: validation, caching, and atomic activation. This gives an agent a realistic model of the refresh process without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the operation stages are front-loaded and readable. It earns its place, though it is not broken into usage or parameter guidance.

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?

Despite annotations and an output schema covering safety and return shape, the description omits parameter roles and gives no usage condition. For a tool with four optional flags and a dry-run mode, this is a notable completeness gap.

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 explain any of the four parameters. The agent cannot tell from the description what force, dry_run, profile_id, or relevant_pokemon control, so the definition fails to compensate for the bare schema.

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 precise operation chain — fetch, validate, cache, and atomically activate — over a concrete resource (VGC Pastes teams and Champions Battle Data usage) scoped to the active regulation. This clearly distinguishes the tool from query-focused siblings like vgc_meta_query.

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?

Use is implied: this is the refresh/update counterpart to metagame query tools, and it is scoped to the active regulation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or which sibling alternatives exist.

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