refresh_server_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral traits: it overwrites the cache (a destructive side effect), the probes run identically to build_server_memory, and the response is structured JSON with per-module successes/failures. It stops short of stating permission requirements or failure/partial-failure semantics.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and cache-overwrite semantics, then routing and return shape. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (structured JSON with per-module successes/failures) and fully covers equivalence and routing. Minor gaps remain around auth requirements and behavior on partial module failure.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both instance_id and modules (including the 'omit to refresh all' behavior), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Re-probe memory modules ... overwrite the cache') and immediately frames it against the sibling build_server_memory, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 selection rule: use refresh_server_memory when updating existing memory after a deploy/upgrade, build_server_memory when no memory exists yet. This is the when-to-use/when-to-use-alternative guidance at its best.

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