youtube_refresh_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it exercises grants, reports age, and cannot create new grants. It also reveals the uncertainty about the Testing clock and the potential sliding behavior, which is valuable context. It does not explicitly state whether token refresh modifies stored state, but 'exercise' implies action; still, the key limitations are clear.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The core function and primary usage are front-loaded, and the limitation is stated clearly at the end. It is both concise and informative.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, why, and its key limitation. It even explains the underlying reasoning about the clock, making the tool fully self-contained.

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 describes nothing. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information since there are none, which is appropriate.

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 ('exercise') and clearly identifies the resource ('every stored grant') and the output ('report its age'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it cannot create new grants, which only consent can do. This makes its purpose 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?

It explicitly prescribes usage as a health check or on a daily schedule, explains the reasoning about the 7-day Testing clock, and states what it does not do (cannot create a grant). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates from authorization tools.

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