refresh_access_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens on success or failure, whether the refresh token is rotated, if authentication is needed, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a security-sensitive OAuth operation.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it is slightly redundant ('refresh access token using refresh token'), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., new access token, new refresh token) or indicate when to use it in the OAuth flow. It does neither, leaving the tool's behavior and response unclear. The minimal description is inadequate for a tool without annotations or output schema.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter (refresh_token) with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'using refresh token' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Refresh access token') and the mechanism ('using refresh token'). It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like exchange_code_for_tokens or get_oauth_url. The verb-resource pair is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context such as 'use when access token expires'. It is a bare statement without any usage context or exclusions.

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