refresh_token_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a side effect ('New tokens are auto-saved to shops.json') and the trigger context, but says nothing about whether an expired access token is still usable to refresh, failure modes, or the refresh-token prerequisite.

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 short sentences, all earning their place: the action, the trigger, and the persistence side effect. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the trigger plus auto-save note cover the essentials for a one-parameter mutation. The gap is the seller_name omission behavior, which an agent must know before calling.

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%, so the description must explain the single parameter and does not. 'For a specific shop' hints seller_name selects the shop, but the parameter is optional with a null default, leaving the critical ambiguity of what happens when it is omitted unresolved.

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 (refresh), resource (TikTok Shop access token) and scope (for a specific shop). The scope phrase implicitly separates it from the sibling refresh_all_tokens_tool, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 an explicit triggering condition — 'Call when you get a 401/token expired error' — which is genuinely actionable. However it never states when-not to use it or routes the agent to refresh_all_tokens_tool for the multi-shop case.

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