refresh_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (reloads tokens, attempts re-authentication), the trigger conditions (after running auth command or saved login), and the outcome (returns status). However, it lacks details on error handling or specific authentication mechanisms, which could be useful for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific usage scenarios and outcome information. Every sentence adds essential context without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for an AI agent to parse.

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 complexity (authentication management with 0 parameters), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral aspects, and with an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The context is fully covered for effective agent use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on usage context rather than parameters, earning a high baseline score. It adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and when to use it without redundant parameter details.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('reload auth tokens', 'run headless re-authentication') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on authentication management rather than content creation or notebook operations. It explicitly mentions the relationship with 'notebooklm-mcp-auth' for context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this after running notebooklm-mcp-auth to pick up new tokens' and 'to attempt automatic re-authentication if Chrome profile has saved login.' It also distinguishes it from alternatives by not overlapping with sibling tools like 'save_auth_tokens' or other authentication-related functions.

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