Refresh an access token

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

Annotations already declare the tool destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful context: it requires write opt-in and confirm:true, may notify recipients or change tenant data, and clarifies that no HTTP body fields are sent. This goes beyond the annotation layer without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loads the action and endpoint. It includes a useful reference URL and safety context, though the unexplained 'See C14' reference and the slightly generic side-effect warning keep it from being maximally polished.

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?

With a single parameter, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the endpoint, content type, credential sourcing, required confirmation, and side-effect warnings. The main missing piece is explicit routing versus the sibling obtain tool.

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?

The schema already documents confirm at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by stating that grant_type, client_id, and refresh_token come only from server configuration and that the HTTP body is empty, clarifying what the single confirm parameter actually gates.

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 states a specific action and resource ('Refresh an access token') and names the exact endpoint and method (POST /api/xm/1/oauth2/token). This distinguishes it from the sibling obtain_an_access_token_and_refresh_token by the token-lifecycle operation.

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 the operation and prerequisites (operator write opt-in, confirm:true) and notes that credentials come from server configuration, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this over the sibling obtain tool or when a token refresh is appropriate. Usage is implied by the name rather than explicitly routed.

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