auth_reauth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the intent (refresh after password change) and does not disclose side effects like invalidating the old session, requiring OTP, or what the refreshed session looks like.

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 words, which makes it easy to parse. It is concise, although the brevity leaves no room for parameter or behavior details.

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 3-parameter auth operation with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is too thin. An agent is left uncertain about OTP behavior, success/failure responses, token requirements, and how this relates to the other auth tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it only implies that password is the new password and session_token is the existing session. The optional otp parameter is not mentioned at all, so most parameter semantics remain unexplained.

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 names a specific operation (refresh a session) and pins it to a concrete scenario (after a password change), which is a clear verb+resource+condition. It does not explicitly contrast itself with auth_login or auth_rotate, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"After a password change" is an explicit usage context, telling the agent when this tool is appropriate. It gives no exclusions or alternative tool names, so it is clear on context but lacks when-not guidance.

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