peaka_refresh_cache_incremental

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the operation is incremental, fetches only new/changed rows, and requires an existing cache. However, it does not mention whether the refresh is asynchronous, what the response is, or how to monitor completion, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains the benefit and parameter source, and the third gives a practical projectId workflow. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the key prerequisites: an existing cache, the cacheId source, the projectId discovery workflow, and the incremental-versus-full distinction. Since there is no output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about return values or asynchronous behavior, but for a simple trigger tool the guidance is largely sufficient.

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 explains both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that cacheId comes from peaka_get_cache_statuses and by explaining how to obtain and remember projectId for subsequent calls. This is meaningful operational guidance that the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Trigger an incremental update on an existing cache in the Peaka project.' It also clearly contrasts with a full refresh by stating it 'fetches only new/changed rows,' making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from peaka_refresh_cache_full.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this for incremental updates that only fetch new/changed rows and are faster than a full refresh. It also provides a workflow for resolving projectId via peaka_list_projects when unknown. It does not explicitly name the sibling peaka_refresh_cache_full, but 'full refresh' clearly alludes to the alternative.

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