refresh_player

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is a non-read action on cached data, notes the ~500 match range, and mentions the API call cost. However, it is silent on whether the refresh is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens to existing cached data, and what the response indicates.

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 concise sentences: the first is front-loaded with the action and target data; the second adds a usage rule and a cost note. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 description covers the operation, when to invoke it, and follow-up guidance, but lacks any note on response shape or potential delays. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent would benefit from knowing whether to expect a simple acknowledgement and whether it needs to wait before re-querying. This missing information keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage: account_id is thoroughly described with its Steam32 format and source. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and adding a generic reference to 'a player' is sufficient; there are no extra semantics to add.

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?

Description clearly identifies an action ('refresh') and a specific resource ('a player's match history... medal and profile name'), making it easy to distinguish from the many read-only get_player_* sibling tools. It states the scope precisely and unambiguously.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: use when a player's data looks stale, followed by a concrete post-condition ('then re-query'). It doesn't name alternative tools (such as request_match_parse) or state when not to use it, leaving a small gap.

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