reauthenticate_cursor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, and idempotent=true. The description adds useful context beyond that: it opens the system browser, replaces SDK local credentials, does not read or return the API key, and requires a validation call afterward. It still omits auth prerequisites and failure behavior.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: it states the trigger before the action, then adds security and follow-up constraints in a compact format. No sentence is wasted, though the parameter omission slightly weakens overall density.

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?

Covers the trigger, the browser-based action, credential replacement, API key handling, and the required validation step. It leaves the 'confirmed' parameter unexplained and does not contrast with authorize_workspace, but annotations already carry the safety profile, so it is nearly complete for a reauthentication tool without an output schema.

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 sole parameter 'confirmed' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and is never mentioned in the description. The const:true constraint implies a required confirmation, but the definition does not explain why or when to pass it. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific action (open system browser to re-login and replace SDK local credentials) and a clear trigger condition. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling authorize_workspace, which also handles an auth-related task.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger (stored login inconsistent with user-confirmed Cursor account or plan) and a required follow-up (re-call list_models). It does not state when not to use this tool or name an alternative sibling such as authorize_workspace.

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