tokportal_rewarm_account

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond the annotations (which are minimal: readOnlyHint=false, etc.). It explains the screen-recording process, verification, credit rate, pricing model (per target, never per day), legacy grace window closure date, term splitting over 3 days, and session non-expiration. No contradictions with annotations.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds substantive information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then logically flows through process, costs, prerequisites, and time behaviors. Minor redundancy (e.g., rate repeated) but justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite comprehensive process and prerequisite details, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, status). With no output schema, this is a gap. The agent is left to infer the outcome. Prerequisites and side effects are well-covered, but the return value 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%, with detailed descriptions for search_terms including rate and process. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting the legacy grace window closure (2026-08-14) and the GET /credit-costs endpoint for effective rates. This extra context improves parameter understanding.

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 begins with 'Order Advanced Niche Warming (rewarm) on a delivered account,' using a specific verb ('order') and a clear resource ('Advanced Niche Warming on a delivered account'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling warming-related tools (e.g., configure_bundle_warming_terms, generate_warming_terms) by specifying it applies to delivered accounts and triggers an actual warming session.

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 explicitly lists prerequisites: active TokPortal Coverage, a routable active account manager backed by a non-cancelled support order, TikTok or Instagram platform, and no already-active warming session. It also states that a completed bundle remains eligible. While it does not name alternative tools for different scenarios, the conditions are clear enough to guide appropriate use.

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