kia_export_refresh_token

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it returns a plaintext credential, bypasses MFA, grants full vehicle control, and requires confirm:true to even read the token. It also warns against displaying or logging the value. This far exceeds the annotation signals and thoroughly clarifies the security implications.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence serves a purpose: action, security warning, use case, exclusion, and behavior without confirmation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, maintaining high information density without 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?

For a credential-export tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, use case, security impact, exclusion, and confirmation requirement. The absence of output schema is compensated by the thorough behavioral description, making the tool's behavior predictable and safe.

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 schema already documents the single confirm parameter with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by explaining the consequence of omitting confirm:true ('the token is not even read') and the preview behavior, reinforcing and extending the schema. This extra context warrants 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 states the specific action ('Return the stored Kia remember-me token (rmtoken) IN PLAINTEXT') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly forbidding its use for session checks and directing to kia_session_status. The verb+resource is highly specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'moving a locally-bootstrapped session into a hosted deployment'. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use directive with an alternative tool named: 'Do NOT call it to "check the session" (use kia_session_status)'. This is exemplary guidance.

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