reauthenticate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it forgets the cached client and re-signs in, which is useful behavioral detail beyond annotations, but it does not explain auth requirements, session effects, or what happens to other cached state.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and includes only the necessary clarifying scope. 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, has no parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately conveys the action and when to use it, though it could mention whether reauthentication invalidates existing sessions or requires user interaction.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The empty schema and 100% description coverage mean no parameter semantics are needed from the description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Forget the cached client and sign in again.' It also clarifies the scope with '(switch Google accounts or scopes).' The sibling tools are all SEO/analytics operations, so this auth-related action is clearly distinguishable.

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 parenthetical '(switch Google accounts or scopes)' gives a clear trigger condition for when to use the tool. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous for an agent.

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