refresh_oauth_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether the old access token is invalidated, what is returned (new tokens?), error conditions (expired refresh token), or side effects. This is insufficient for a security-sensitive operation.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but at the expense of missing critical information. Still, for structure and brevity, it is efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected response, error handling, or how this tool fits into the OAuth flow (e.g., it must follow handle_oauth_callback). The tool's complexity demands more 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 single parameter 'refreshToken' has no description (0% schema coverage), and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's type and minLength. The agent is left to guess the format, origin, and constraints of the required value.

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 the action ('Refresh OAuth access tokens') and resource ('OAuth access tokens'), using a specific verb. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'revoke_oauth_tokens' or 'handle_oauth_callback', though the naming helps.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., start_oauth_flow, handle_oauth_callback), nor prerequisites like needing a valid refresh token first. The description only states the basic function.

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