re_auth

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

Even with no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive side effects: closing all browser sessions, deleting cookies and the Chrome profile, and opening a fresh login. It also sets expectations about repeated failures and cleanup steps. This is far more transparent than a minimal 're-authenticate' statement.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage triggers, then moves through effects, verification, and troubleshooting in a logical order. Although long, every section earns its place given the destructive and potentially repeating nature of re-authentication, and there is no filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it explains what will happen, when to use it, how to verify success, and how to recover if re_auth fails repeatedly. The parameter schema fills in the remaining details.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters and their defaults. The description adds some framing around 'simple version' vs 'browser_options' but does not meaningfully expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific action ('Switch to a different Google account or re-authenticate'), names the resource, and lists concrete triggers: rate limit reached, account switch, and broken authentication. This clearly communicates what the tool does and differentiates it from initial auth/setup by emphasizing re-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 explicit 'Use this when' bullets covering rate limits, account switching, and broken authentication, plus follow-up verification with get_health and recovery steps involving cleanup_data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with setup_auth or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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