Обновление корпоративной сессии

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: the refresh token is not rotated, repeated calls are safe, and a dead refresh token leads to 'MYT SESSION EXPIRED' requiring a full re-login. The annotations only mark it as not read-only and not destructive, so this adds substantial transparency without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: core action first, then why it's usually unnecessary, the two specific use cases, side-effect transparency, and failure handling. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without filler.

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?

It fully covers what the tool does, when to use and avoid it, side effects, error behavior, and the next step after expiry. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable. The description is complete for an agent to invoke and decide correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything; baseline 4 applies. The description mentions no parameter details, but none are needed here.

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: exchanging a MyT refresh token for a fresh access token, performed forcibly and immediately. It distinguishes itself from siblings like myt_status by focusing on the refresh operation and explicitly referencing the status tool's limitations.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is usually NOT needed and gives exactly two cases when it should be used: checking the refresh token specifically, and refreshing before a long chain of calls. It also provides the alternative full-login command and instructs not to ask the user for a password, giving clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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