Reload configuration from disk

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false)Skip; the description adds behavioral context: it resets the HTTP session DNS, drops caches, and notes tool-surface gating requires a server restart. This goes beyond annotations and warns of a side effect (session reset) that agents need to know, without contradicting structured hints.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core action (drop caches and re-read) and then adds usage context. Every sentence provides a distinct piece of info (what resets, when to use, auto-load caveat, restart requirement). Slightly long but each part earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must stand on its own. It explains the full behavior (cache drop, re-read from disk, session reset), when to call it, and the automatic pickup nuance. It doesn't spell out the return value, but for a side-effecting reload tool that is acceptable. Complete for its complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema provides no semantics to extend. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead documents the tool's behavior and the conditions for its use, which is the appropriate compensation.

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 action (drop caches, re-read config), names the specific config sources explicitly (.zuar-portal/config.json, bundle config, env-derived settings), and clearly distinguishes it from a passive load or update. It also mentions resetting the HTTP session, which differentiates it from get_config/update_config siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after manually editing config) and what is auto-picked-up (mtime-aware automatic reload for existing files). It identifies the triggering condition for a newly created config file or bundle/env change, giving clear use cases. It does not name alternatives like get_config, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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