reauthenticate

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It explicitly states that the tool 'Does not delete files; just resets in-process clients,' clarifying safety. It also explains the effect ('force re-authentication on the next API call') and the mechanism ('resets in-process clients'). This is comprehensive for a simple tool.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence immediately states the core action. Every sentence adds necessary information—purpose, conditions, and behavioral note—making it highly efficient.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it does not do. It is fully self-contained and leaves no ambiguity for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose and side effects. Per guidelines, zero parameters defaults to a baseline of 4, but the description's extra context (when to use, behavioral details) raises it to a 5.

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 tool's function: 'Force re-authentication on the next API call.' It uses a specific verb ('force re-authentication') and resource (API call), making the purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on authentication, a unique capability among the listed 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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'when ADC credentials have changed or OAuth token has expired and cached state is stale.' This tells the agent exactly when to employ the tool, offering clear context. Although it doesn't list when not to use it, the positive conditions are sufficiently specific.

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