refresh_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns both access and refresh tokens, that it requires specific environment variables, and that values should be persisted into .env. It does not mention whether the old refresh token becomes invalid or any side effects, but for a simple token refresh operation, the key behaviors are covered.

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 exactly two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the requirements. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what it does, what it returns ('new values'), and what is required. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., object keys), but that is not critical for this simple tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by referencing the necessary environment variables (LINKEDIN_CLIENT_ID, LINKEDIN_CLIENT_SECRET, LINKEDIN_REFRESH_TOKEN) which are the actual inputs, even though they are not part of the schema. This gives the agent essential context.

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 specific action: 'Mint a fresh LinkedIn access token (and refresh token)' with the resource being tokens. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all about checking connections, listing organizations, or getting statistics. The verb 'mint' is specific and vivid.

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 implies usage when tokens need refreshing, though it does not explicitly say 'when to use' or compare with alternatives. It provides clear context by mentioning the configured refresh credentials and required environment variables, which are prerequisites. No exclusions are stated, but the tool's purpose is self-evident among siblings.

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