Refresh Access Token

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

Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact exchange operation, which complements the annotations well. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens to the old access token.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 single-parameter authentication tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It clearly states what the tool does, though it could benefit from mentioning the expected return value (the new access token) since there's no output schema to document this.

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% with the single parameter 'refresh_token' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., token format, expiration details, or error conditions). Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Exchange') and the resources involved ('refresh token for a new access token'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'dual_login' or 'dual_register' by focusing specifically on token refresh rather than initial authentication or user registration.

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 implies usage context (when a refresh token is available), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_login' for initial authentication or 'dual_register' for new accounts. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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