tp_refresh_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutating operation ('refresh') but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing auth, whether the browser must be open, or what happens on failure. Accessing the user's browser cookies is a sensitive operation, and the description lacks essential safety details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema). The description covers purpose and when to use it, but lacks details on success/failure behavior, prerequisites (e.g., browser must be logged in), and what the refreshed auth enables. Some gaps remain for a security-sensitive action.

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 coverage is 100%: the single 'browser' parameter is fully described with an enum and default value. The description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it refreshes auth by extracting a cookie from the user's browser, giving a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_auth_status, which likely checks auth status rather than modifying it.

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 explicitly says 'Use when other tools return auth errors,' providing a clear trigger condition. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full guidance.

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