Refresh auth

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

With annotations already indicating idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the behavioral detail of extracting a cookie from the user's browser. It does not mention potential side effects like requiring user interaction or overwriting existing auth, but the annotations cover the safety profile sufficiently for a 3.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key usage trigger. Every word adds value with 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, mechanism, and when to use it. It omits details about return values, but given the simplicity and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides a full description for the 'browser' parameter (100% coverage), including enum and default values. The tool description's mention of 'user's browser' aligns with the parameter but does not add significant new meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool refreshes auth by extracting a cookie from the user's browser, providing a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is used when other tools return auth errors, which differentiates it from tp_auth_status.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when other tools return auth errors'), giving clear context. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or naming of alternative tools, so it doesn't fully cover exclusions.

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