nexus_oauth_refresh

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

Annotations provide little safety context (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true with no destructiveHint). The description goes well beyond them by explaining the failure mode (4xx means user revoked the app), the side effect on 4xx (stored tokens are cleared), and the recovery path (log in again). It also discloses the return payload shape. This is exactly the kind of high-value behavioral context the description should add.

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 compact paragraphs with zero filler. The trigger condition is front-loaded, the failure handling and alternative are next, and the return format is last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure aids an agent scanning for when-to-use.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, invocation trigger, failure semantics, side effects, recovery, and return values. No important behavioral aspect is left to inference.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. Returning a baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate — no semantic gap exists.

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 verb ('Force a refresh') and resource ('OAuth access token via the refresh grant'), matching the tool's name and distinguishing it from login/exchange/logout siblings. It unambiguously describes what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a request unexpectedly returns 401.' It also gives an exclusion/alternative: on 4xx refresh failure, clear tokens and log in again with nexus_oauth_login, naming the sibling alternative. This is model usage guidance.

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