set_bearer_token

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds the refresh semantics and environment scoping. It does not go further to explain whether the token overwrites existing auth or whether it persists, but there is no contradiction.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences contain only essential information: the action, the resource scope, and the triggering condition. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema gives enough context to call it correctly. It could clarify whether the token replaces existing tokens, but this is a minor gap.

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 both token and environment parameters already explained. The description adds no additional parameter format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-object pairing ('Set or refresh the bearer token') and scopes it to an AKHQ environment. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling clear_bearer_token and other auth-related tools.

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: when a request fails with an expired/unauthorized token error. This is actionable context, though it does not explicitly contrast with clear_bearer_token or other auth tools.

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