reauthorize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool re-runs the OAuth flow, implying re-authentication, but does not mention side effects such as invalidation of existing tokens, requirement for user interaction, or impacts on current session. Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant or filler language. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage scenarios. It lacks detailed side-effect disclosure, but for a 0-param auth flow tool, the description is reasonably complete and not misleading.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all parameters. The description provides no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters, and no deduction is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Re-run the OAuth authorization flow') and explicitly states two use cases: switching to a different Mediagraph organization or re-authenticating. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on other functional domains.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use this to switch to a different Mediagraph organization or re-authenticate'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given no similar sibling tools exist, this is sufficient guidance.

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