Obtain an access token and refresh token

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the call POSTs, may notify recipients or change tenant data, and requires an operator opt-in plus confirm:true. It also clarifies that body fields are none and credentials are server-side, giving an agent a realistic picture of the operation's side effects.

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 dense but generally tight: purpose first, then endpoint, transport details, configuration source, and side-effect warnings. The 'See C14' and reference line are slightly cryptic yet still compact, and no sentence is 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: an agent knows the endpoint, content type, credential source, required confirmation, and likely side effects. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the confirm parameter already has a thorough description, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. It reinforces confirm:true and notes the body has no additional fields, but this does not substantially exceed the 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 action and resource: 'Obtain an access token and refresh token,' and identifies the exact endpoint. It is clear enough to tell this initial token acquisition apart from the sibling refresh_an_access_token, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.

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 gives clear operational context: it requires operator write opt-in, confirm:true, uses form-urlencoded rather than query credentials, and obtains credentials from server configuration. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of refresh_an_access_token,' so some selection guidance is left implicit.

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