food_login_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation invalidates the old token, whether the 'token' field must be supplied or is derived from session state, what happens on failure, or what credentials are needed — all critical for an auth-token mutation.

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?

At three words it is certainly concise and front-loaded, but the brevity here borders on under-specification rather than disciplined economy — nothing beyond the resource name is communicated.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented optional parameter leave the agent guessing about the token lifecycle and return behavior. For a credential-refresh operation on a shared auth family, this is materially incomplete.

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 0% for the single 'token' parameter, and the description does not compensate: it never clarifies whether 'token' is the current token to refresh, a refresh token, or an optional override. Notably the schema marks it optional (0 required), which the description does not explain.

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 gives a specific verb ('Refresh') and a specific resource ('food token'), so an agent knows this rotates/refreshes an authentication token rather than sending or verifying one like the sibling food_login_send/food_login_verify. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus food_login_send or food_login_verify, and no prerequisites such as an expired or existing token being required. Usage is only inferable from the name itself.

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