re_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly outlines the tool's actions in a numbered list (closing sessions, deleting authentication data, opening browser for login) and details consequences like data deletion. It also covers troubleshooting steps and dependencies on other tools, providing rich behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, actions, troubleshooting) and uses bullet points for readability. However, it is moderately long due to the troubleshooting details, which, while helpful, could be considered slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but it's not maximally concise.

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 complexity of authentication management and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral steps, troubleshooting, and references to sibling tools ('get_health', 'cleanup_data'). This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively without structured output details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('show_browser' and 'browser_options') with their properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it does imply the tool's primary use without parameters (e.g., default behavior for re-auth). This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Switch to a different Google account or re-authenticate') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on authentication management rather than notebook operations like 'add_notebook' or 'get_health'. It clearly identifies the resource (Google account/authentication) and action (switch/re-authenticate).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with three bullet points covering rate limits, account switching, and broken authentication. It also references sibling tools ('get_health' for verification and 'cleanup_data' for troubleshooting) and includes a troubleshooting section with step-by-step alternatives for persistent issues, making it comprehensive for usage decisions.

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