account_reauth

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent operation, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot express: consent runs in the browser, meaning the call is interactive/blocking. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true flag (e.g. whether existing tokens are invalidated), which is the one notable omission.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the caveat that consent happens in the browser, then the required input. Every sentence carries information and none is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the interaction burden, and it does flag the browser consent step. However, for a tool flagged destructive with no explanation, it leaves the agent guessing about token invalidation, failure modes, and what state the account is left in if consent is abandoned.

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 both params are self-documented, so baseline is 3. The schema exposes two duplicate parameters (alias and account, the latter documented as 'same as `alias`'), and the description only says 'Pass the account alias' without clarifying the redundancy or which one takes precedence.

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 verb and resource ('Re-authenticate an existing Google account') and immediately scopes the purpose with two concrete scenarios (dead refresh token, post-profile-change scope grants). It is clearly distinguishable from account_add and account_write_config in the sibling list, though it never names them explicitly.

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 the two trigger conditions for choosing this tool ('recover a dead refresh token, or grant scopes after a profile change'), which is strong contextual guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for adding a brand-new account, use account_add) or listing prerequisites.

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