refresh_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'manually refresh' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it affects existing sessions, or what happens on failure (e.g., token expiration). For a security-sensitive tool, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Manually refresh authentication token') and adds necessary detail ('using stored login credentials'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 operations and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the refreshed token is used for, how it's returned (e.g., as a string or in a response object), or error conditions. For a tool with security implications, this leaves too many contextual gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema (including enum values like 'resy'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why 'platform' is needed or how it influences the refresh process. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('refresh') and target ('authentication token'), and specifies the method ('using stored login credentials'). It distinguishes itself from authentication-related siblings like 'check_auth_status', 'set_credentials', and 'set_login' by focusing on token renewal rather than status checking or credential setting. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_auth_status' (for verifying token validity) or 'set_credentials'/'set_login' (for initial credential setup). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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