whoop-refresh-token

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the obvious. No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, token lifecycle, or whether the refresh token is consumed or rotated. For an OAuth token refresh, this is a notable omission.

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 extremely concise, using only five words to convey the essential purpose. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the minimal description is borderline adequate. However, it could be improved by hinting at the return value (e.g., a new access token) or the typical flow (e.g., 'Call this when the access token expires'). It does not fully set expectations for the agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, so the description adds little value beyond what the schema already states. The tool description essentially repeats the schema's description, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 tool's function: refreshing an access token using a refresh token. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whoop-exchange-code-for-token and whoop-set-access-token.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as having a valid refresh token, nor does it mention when to use exchange-code-for-token or set-access-token instead.

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