baasix_refresh_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does reveal that the tool forces a token refresh and supports only email/password auth. It does not disclose side effects such as invalidation of the existing token, failure modes, or whether a new token is returned, which would be useful for a mutation-like auth operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information: the action, the target, and the auth-method constraint.

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 zero-parameter tool this is mostly adequate: it states the operation and constraint. But without an output schema or annotations, an agent is left guessing about the return value and side effects, and there is no mention of when to choose this over the sibling auth tools.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.

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 identifies a specific operation ('Force refresh') on a specific resource ('authentication token'), and adds the constraint that it only works for email/password auth. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling auth tools such as baasix_login or baasix_auth_status.

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 'only works for email/password auth' clause gives an implicit exclusion for other auth methods. However, it does not state when an agent should refresh instead of logging in, checking status, or getting the current user, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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