google_reauth_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns an authorization URL, requires user authorization, reuses current scopes if none are given, and fails if the authorized email does not match the existing account. These details give the agent a solid understanding of the side effects and prerequisites beyond the raw schema.

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?

Every sentence in the description serves a purpose: purpose, usage triggers, return value, follow-up step, default behavior, and a constraint. At roughly five sentences, it is dense but not verbose, and it front-loads the core action. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 has three parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains the return value (authorization URL), the necessary next step (google_check_pending_auth), the default scope behavior, and a critical success condition (email must match). This fully covers the agent's need to invoke and complete the flow, leaving no significant gaps in context.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including enum lists and individual descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that 'If no scope tier is given, the account's current scopes are reused', which explains the default behavior and the relationship between scopeTier and scopeTiers. This goes slightly beyond the schema's 'Optional' flags, hence a 4.

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 opens with the specific verb+resource 'Re-authenticate an existing Google account', which clearly states the tool's action. It further distinguishes from siblings like google_add_account and google_remove_account by describing reauth as a way to refresh tokens or change scope tiers without losing account metadata. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiable.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a refresh token is invalidated... or when you need to add/change scope tiers'. It also provides a clear alternative path by instructing to 'call google_check_pending_auth with the sessionId' after authorization, effectively outlining the follow-up workflow. This gives strong guidance on usage within the tool's ecosystem.

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