refresh_access_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the function without disclosing important behaviors like token rotation, expiry duration, or what the response contains. There is no mention of side effects, error conditions, or whether the old refresh token is invalidated.

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?

At one sentence, the description is highly concise and front-loads the core action. The slight redundancy of 'refresh' twice is minor, but overall it is appropriately sized and well-structured for a simple tool.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how the refresh token is consumed. It lacks this, leaving the agent uncertain about whether a new access token is returned and whether the refresh token is rotated. This is a significant gap for a token-management tool.

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 fully documents the single required parameter with 100% coverage. The description's 'using refresh token' adds no semantic value beyond the schema's 'The refresh token to use', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Refresh access token') and the resource ('access token') using 'refresh token', making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like exchange_code_for_tokens, but the distinction is implicit in the different grant type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as exchange_code_for_tokens or get_oauth_url. The description only states the mechanism without any context on token lifecycle, prerequisites, or exclusion cases.

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