dl_auth_refresh

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description is fully consistent while adding substantial detail beyond them: which external resource is touched (system browser, SSO provider), the 120-second vs 15-second timeouts, cached-sign-in behavior, and — critically — that no tokens or login URLs are returned. That last point is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and default behavior before the edge-case parameter guidance; every clause carries information. Slightly jargon-heavy ('yc account/profile') but 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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation with annotations already covering safety and world scope, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what state changes, what it will not return, and how the one flag alters runtime behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description carries the full burden and does: it establishes the default (browser enabled), the semantics of false (noninteractive attempt), and the operational consequence of each branch including timing. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 ('Refresh IAM') and adds concrete scope: update API/SDK credentials and verify API access. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling dl_auth_check by describing refresh-and-update rather than a status read, but never names or contrasts the alternative explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 clear operational context for the one meaningful choice: browser SSO is attempted by default (up to 120s, cached sign-in may complete automatically), and allow_browser=false is for when browser sign-in is disallowed (15s noninteractive). It stops short of routing guidance against the sibling dl_auth_check, so no explicit alternatives are offered.

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