Renew the authentication session to restore access to task management using saved or newly provided credentials.
Renova a sessão de autenticação do Gestão de Tarefas utilizando as credenciais salvas ou novas credenciais informadas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | E-mail de login (opcional se já configurado localmente). | ||
| password | No | Senha de login (opcional se já configurada localmente). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that credentials can come from saved storage or from provided parameters, but it fails to mention side effects such as invalidating the current session, what happens if no saved credentials exist, or how failures are reported.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and explains the credential source in a compact, readable way. There is no filler or unnecessary detail.
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?
This is a fairly simple tool with only two optional parameters, and the description captures the essential operation. However, since there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, the description could have mentioned observable behavior, such as silent renewal, session invalidation, or authentication error behavior, to be fully self-contained.
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%, so the schema already documents email and password as optional if credentials are locally configured. The description adds little semantic value beyond restating that saved or new credentials are used, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action: renew the authentication session for the Gestão de Tarefas system, using either saved or provided credentials. Although it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like verificar_status_conexao, the action and resource are uniquely identifiable.
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 such as verificar_status_conexao, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only implies that renewal is the intended purpose, so an agent gets no help choosing it over related authentication/connection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.