poll_token_renew

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: "The previous raw nxsept_ bearer stops working immediately" — a specific, non-obvious invalidation side effect. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure modes (e.g. no active token), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the single highest-value behavioral fact. No filler, no redundancy, every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, full schema coverage, output schema present so return values need no explanation) and the description covers the key lifecycle consequence of renewing. It is close to complete, missing only explicit preconditions and when-to-use framing.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents session_id and session_secret (including their provenance from session_open). The description adds no format, constraint, or sensitivity detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb pair plus resource: "Rotate and extend the active ephemeral poll token for this session." That is well beyond a restatement of the name and clearly separates renew from issue/revoke. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "the active ... token for this session" tells the agent a token must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-call, no precondition statement, and no routing against poll_token_issue or poll_token_revoke. Minimal viable guidance, nothing more.

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