environments_reauthorize

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior: 'This rotates the environment auth token; any embedded snippet using the old token stops working until updated.' This is good, but could also mention if the operation is irreversible or any rate limits.

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 concise with two sentences and a warning. Every sentence is essential, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 covers prerequisites and side effects but lacks information about the return value or output. Since there is no output schema, the agent may not know what to expect after successful reauthorization. Otherwise, it's adequate for a high-impact mutation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds that 'confirm' must be true, but this is already in the schema as required with a description. No additional meaning is added beyond 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 clearly states 'Re-generate the authorization code for a GTM environment' which specifies the verb (re-generate) and resource (authorization code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like environments_list, get, create, update, delete.

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 provides clear prerequisites: 'Requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_PUBLISH=true and confirm=true.' It also warns about the impact of rotating the token. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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