meta_refresh_token

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: token must be at least 24h old, uses platform-specific endpoints, returns a 60-day valid token, and applies the new token in-memory without restart. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) and adds significant value over the annotations alone.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds necessary information (endpoint details, return value, side effect). No fluff or redundancy. Ideal conciseness for its informational load.

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 the tool's complexity (two parameters, platform enum, token refresh), the description covers purpose, usage condition, endpoint mapping, return value, and important side effect (in-memory update). No output schema, but the description adequately explains the output (new token). Complete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by connecting platform to specific endpoints and noting the token's return validity (60 days). This provides context not in the schema, justifying a 4. However, no additional detail on token format or error handling is provided.

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 tool refreshes a long-lived token, specifying the verb 'refresh' and resource 'long-lived token'. It adds constraints (must be at least 24h old, platform-specific endpoints) and implies the context of token management. While not explicitly differentiating from siblings like meta_exchange_token, the purpose is precise and actionable.

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 specifies when to use the tool: before token expiry and only if the token is at least 24 hours old. It mentions platform-specific endpoints but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., meta_exchange_token for initial token exchange). The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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