Refresh Jobber Token

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only says 'refresh,' implying mutation, but lacks details on network calls, side effects, or error conditions. Important behaviors like token expiration or rate limits are omitted.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded. It could arguably be expanded with minimal verbosity, but it remains concise and to the point.

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 side effects (refreshing token), the description is too sparse. It omits whether it initiates a network call, updates storage automatically, or requires a prior authentication flow. More context is needed for safe usage.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage trivially). The description adds no param info, but none is needed. It does not contradict or repeat the schema, earning a baseline 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 'Refresh the locally stored Jobber access token,' specifying the action (refresh) and resource (access token). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jobber_exchange_code and jobber_auth_url, which handle initial authentication steps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jobber_exchange_code for initial token exchange) or what prerequisites exist (e.g., token must exist). The agent is left to infer usage context.

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