refresh_hudl_cookie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the credential prerequisite (.env), that a fallback may trigger an interactive pop-up browser login (a real side effect worth warning about), and what is returned. It does not say where/how the cookie is persisted, whether it expires, or whether an existing session is invalidated — gaps for an auth-mutating 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?

Short, front-loaded, and split into a purpose line, a conditional behavior line, and a returns block. The 'Returns:' paragraph is largely redundant since an output schema already exists, costing a small amount of space.

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 zero-parameter auth tool with an output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the two execution paths, the notable side effect, and the outcome. Remaining unknowns (cookie lifetime, storage location, effect on concurrent sessions) are secondary but would matter to an agent reasoning about repeated auth failures.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly does not invent or allude to inputs, keeping the no-arg contract unambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Refresh the Hudl session authentication cookie') and immediately frames the two operating modes, which implicitly distinguishes it from the interactive login_to_hudl sibling. An agent can tell what it does and how it relates to the other auth tool without opening either schema.

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 conditional 'If credentials are configured in .env ... Otherwise ... via login_to_hudl' gives clear context for which path will run and names the alternative tool. It stops short of an explicit instruction such as 'call this first; only use login_to_hudl if this reports no credentials', leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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