reauthenticate

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics; the description adds the useful context that the current session is terminated and an interactive browser sign-in is launched. It does not say what happens after the browser flow completes (whether tokens are refreshed automatically or the agent must re-poll), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the concrete action and follows with the when-to-use list — no filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters there is little else to document. The description covers action, scope, and triggers; only the post-flow outcome (does the caller need to retry?) is left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The '(OAuth only)' qualifier correctly signals there is no credential/account argument to pass.

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?

States concrete actions — sign out, then reopen the Google sign-in page — for a named credential mechanism (Google OAuth). The parenthetical '(OAuth only)' plus the three scenarios separate it from setup_gsc_access and the read-only reporting siblings.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the triggering conditions: first-time login, expired tokens, and switching Google accounts, and restricts scope to OAuth. An agent knows precisely when to choose this tool rather than setup_gsc_access or a data-fetching tool.

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