fluig_session_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key trait that this mutates shared in-memory auth state and avoids a process restart, which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about what happens if the stored credentials are invalid, whether in-flight/concurrent calls are affected, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the call returns on success vs failure.

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, zero filler: the action first, then the triggering symptom. Nothing is repeated from the tool name or the schema.

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 one-parameter auth-reset tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and trigger adequately. The remaining gap is failure/edge behavior (bad credentials, concurrent calls) and any indication of the response, which the agent would otherwise have to discover by calling it.

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% and the single enum parameter 'env' is already documented in detail (homologação vs PRODUÇÃO REAL, no default). The description adds nothing about the environment choice, so the baseline 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?

States a specific two-part action: discards the in-memory session and performs a fresh login, plus a scope note that the MCP process is not restarted. That is concrete and unambiguous. It stops short of 5 only because it does not relate itself to any sibling (none of the listed tools concern session/auth state, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated).

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?

Gives explicit triggers: call this when a tool returns the LOGIN PAGE instead of data, or an FDNUnauthenticatedAccessDeniedException. That is a clear, actionable condition an agent can detect. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. after a successful call, or as a preventive retry), so a small inference is still required.

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