socials_refresh_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: 'Uses device-based auth if device was previously registered (works even when logged out)' and 'Auto-registers device for future sessions if user is logged in.' This goes beyond a simple 'refresh' and explains side effects. However, it doesn't mention potential impacts like invalidating existing sessions or what success/failure look like, but the core behaviors are covered.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with 'RECOVERY STEP 1' for immediate context. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior, and fallback. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter recovery tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides purpose, conditions, behavior, and a fallback action. Missing is an explicit statement of what constitutes success or failure, but the agent can infer this from the tool's role in a recovery sequence, and sibling tools like diagnostics can verify the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. It effectively uses no input schema, and the description adds context about behavior rather than parameter details, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific action: 'Restore authentication when connected but auth fails.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by labeling itself as 'RECOVERY STEP 1' and explicitly referencing a fallback step (socials_restart_bridge). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when connected but auth fails.' It also gives a clear fallback path: 'If this fails, proceed to socials_restart_bridge (step 2).' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and what to do next, which is ideal.

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