vk_post_user_38ed3bdad118

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exchange mechanism, the optional body, and the authentication requirement, which are meaningful behavioral insights. It doesn't cover failure modes or side effects on existing tokens, but the core semantics are clear.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and is compact, with most sentences adding value. However, the sentence about path/query parameters being top-level fields is confusing and not clearly aligned with the schema, which slightly undermines the structure.

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 simple token refresh proxy with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, authentication, and invocation details adequately. It doesn't explain the response format, but that is not critical for this tool's simplicity and the available schema/annotations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add useful info about camelCase/snake_case aliases and the optional body, but the claim that 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields' is contradicted by the schema's additionalProperties: false, creating ambiguity for the single allowed field.

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 'Refresh user token', a specific verb+resource combination. It further distinguishes itself by identifying the exact Vikunja endpoint (POST /user/token/refresh) and explaining the exchange of refresh token cookie for a JWT, which is unique among the many sibling 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?

The description gives clear context: it is a token refresh operation, authentication is required, and the request payload is optional. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative auth tools like login, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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