auth_refresh

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. 'Refresh authentication token' implies a mutation operation that likely requires valid credentials, but the description doesn't specify prerequisites, rate limits, security implications, or what happens to the old token. For a security-sensitive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise at three words, front-loading the essential action and resource with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.

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 this is an authentication tool with no annotations, no output schema, and security implications, the description is incomplete. It should explain what 'refresh' entails, what credentials are needed, whether this invalidates previous tokens, and what format the response takes, but provides none of this context.

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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('collection'), so the schema already documents this parameter adequately. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but doesn't add value.

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 'Refresh authentication token' clearly states the verb ('Refresh') and resource ('authentication token'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling authentication tools like 'authenticate_user' or 'authenticate_with_oauth2', which would require explaining what makes token refresh distinct from initial authentication.

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. With multiple authentication-related siblings (authenticate_user, authenticate_with_oauth2, authenticate_with_otp), the description should specify that this is for refreshing existing tokens rather than obtaining new ones, but it offers no such context or exclusions.

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