update_fpl_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the token is stored and validated against the FPL API, explains the optional team_id behavior, and notes the return value indicates whether storage and validation succeeded. It does not explicitly say 'this overwrites the existing token,' but that is implied by 'store a new' and the context of expiration.

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 a clear one-sentence purpose, then provides usage context, detailed token-fetching steps, and parameters. It is long but every part serves a purpose; the DevTools instructions are necessary for the user to obtain the token. Slightly verbose but well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return value. It covers what, when, how, parameters, and expected outcome. It is complete for a credential-update tool that requires user participation to obtain the token.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. The Args section clarifies that refresh_token can be the entire oidc.user JSON or just its refresh_token field, and team_id can be omitted to keep the current one. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Store a new FPL refresh token when the current one has expired.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_fpl_authentication or get_manager_info, which have different purposes.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when authenticated FPL tools fail with an invalid/expired refresh token error.' This gives clear guidance and implies a condition that distinguishes it from alternatives.

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