wsauth_add_reconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Generate authenticated reconnection,' which implies mutation or code generation, but does not disclose that it likely modifies the project directory, whether it requires an api_key for Pro authorization, or what side effects occur.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. The parenthetical Pro note adds useful gating context without bloating the description.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an action-oriented name, the description is too thin. It does not say what is generated, where it is generated, what the agent should expect after invocation, or how the parameters relate to the operation.

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 only 50%: directory is documented, but api_key is not. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain the role of api_key, which is especially relevant given the '(Pro feature)' note.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate authenticated reconnection.' It clearly identifies this as a WebSocket auth reconnection tool, distinguishing it from generic websocket tools like ws_generate_server and related auth tools like wsauth_add_tokens. However, it does not fully define what 'reconnection' involves, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(Pro feature)' hints at entitlement requirements but does not explain selection criteria, prerequisites, or when wsauth_add_tokens or ws_add_rooms would be more appropriate.

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