manage_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether these actions mutate state, send emails, require authentication, invalidate existing tokens, or produce side effects; the NEXT STEPS hint about verifying identity after refresh is the only behavioral clue.

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 its purpose, then delivers structured examples and a next-step callout. Every section earns its place, and the format makes it easy for an agent to scan and immediately apply the tool.

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 complex with 7 parameters and 7 distinct actions, and while reset and refresh flows are well exemplified, verification and email-change flows are only named, not demonstrated. The output schema covers return values, but the behavioral gaps around email dispatch and token lifecycle keep this from being fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the examples add real value by showing valid action-specific parameter combinations (e.g., request_password_reset with email, confirm_password_reset with token/password/password_confirm, refresh without collection). This bridges the gap between the flat schema and the action enum.

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 names a specific resource (auth lifecycle) and enumerates the concrete operations it covers: password reset, verification, email change, and token refresh. It distinguishes manage_auth from sibling tools like write_record and connect by scoping it to auth lifecycle actions, though the verb 'manage' is broad.

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?

It opens with an explicit 'USE WHEN' trigger and provides worked examples for the most common actions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare against connect, but it does give a next-step pointer to connect(as_='status') after refresh, which gives practical sequencing guidance.

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