gws.accounts.reauth

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool opens a browser, returns a pendingId, and requires a follow-up call to complete. It also clarifies that it does not change account label or settings, providing useful boundary information.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then explains the asynchronous flow and non-destructive nature. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 async browser-based flow, the description properly instructs the agent to expect a pendingId and call gws.accounts.complete. It also covers what the tool does not do (changes to label/settings). No output schema exists, but the return value is mentioned.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'account' is fully described as 'Account label or email to re-authorize.' The tool description repeats this without adding new parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Re-authorize an existing account.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like gws.accounts.add (new account) and gws.accounts.complete (finalization) by explaining the re-auth flow.

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?

Provides clear context on usage: opens the browser, returns a pendingId, and explicitly instructs to call gws.accounts.complete to finalize. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, such as for adding a new account.

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