nexus_reauth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses key behavior: it opens a browser, requires the user to log in and close it, and saves the session for future use. It does not mention potential blocking/timeout or whether existing sessions are invalidated, but the core interactive flow is transparent.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy, front-loading the core action and then explaining the interactive steps and supported providers.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter interactive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, user steps, outcome, and permitted values. It omits return-value details and timeout behavior, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 provider and url. The description only repeats the provider list and gives no additional parameter nuances, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('browser window for re-authentication with a provider'), and details the expected flow. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on subagents, model switching, and configuration, none of which handle authentication.

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?

It explains the intended use case (re-authentication) and lists supported providers, so an agent knows when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool serves the same auth purpose, so this is clear enough.

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