Reauthorize Environment

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the old code stops working immediately after regeneration. This is critical for an agent to understand the side effect. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible or if it requires special permissions, but the immediate invalidation is a significant behavioral disclosure.

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 with zero waste. The main action is front-loaded, and the usage context is provided in a compact, actionable second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a regeneration tool: it states the action, the trigger condition, and the immediate consequence. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. It could mention whether the new code is returned in the response, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it's well-rounded.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the purpose of the 'environment' parameter by noting the API requires a body but uses none of it. This is a baseline 3 with some added 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Regenerate an environment's authorization code.' This is a specific verb (regenerate) and resource (environment authorization code), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_environment, create_environment, and update_environment by focusing on the authorization code regeneration action.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when a preview link has leaked.' It also explains the consequence of using it ('the old code stops working immediately') and the follow-up action ('anything embedding it must be updated'). This provides clear context and implicitly excludes other tools.

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