tokportal_rewarm_account

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, giving minimal behavioral context. The description compensates richly: it details screen-recording per term, verification before completion, standard credit rate (5 credits per term), the split over 3 days, and even the legacy grace window closure. All this adds significant value beyond 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 a single paragraph of ~150 words. It front-loads the purpose, but includes tangential details like the legacy grace window and credit cost reference that could be moved to parameter descriptions or annotations. While efficient, it is not as concise as it could be with bullet points or separation of prerequisites from behavior.

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 thoroughly covers prerequisites, behavior, and scheduling, but it fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, status). Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the tool's response. This is a notable gap for a tool that initiates a long-running process, reducing completeness.

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 already has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for 'search_terms' including the behavioral process. The tool description partially repeats that process (e.g., 'for each provided term the manager screen-records...') but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Order Advanced Niche Warming (rewarm) on a delivered account.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like tokportal_generate_warming_terms (which generates terms) and tokportal_list_account_warming_sessions (which lists sessions), as it is the only one that starts a warming session on a delivered account.

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 lists explicit prerequisites (active TokPortal Coverage, routable account manager, non-cancelled support order, TikTok/Instagram, no active warming session) and notes that a completed bundle remains eligible. It also explains the scheduling (3 calendar days, earlier-day tasks available). While it does not explicitly say 'do not use if X', the prerequisites effectively guide when to use versus alternatives like generating terms or configuring bundle warming terms.

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