Refresh OAuth token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not return the token, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it omits other relevant behaviors like side effects (e.g., token persistence), error conditions, or prerequisite state (e.g., needing an existing token).

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the action and endpoint, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, where it does it, and what it returns (nothing). It is complete enough for the agent to understand the core behavior, though adding usage context would further improve 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, and with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified. It correctly avoids redundant documentation.

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 clearly states the action (force-refresh), the resource (OAuth2 client-credentials token), and the specific endpoint (POST /oauth2/token on dc-partner.eda.yandex.net). It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like yandex_eats_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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as indicating it should be used when the token expires or requires renewal. It lacks context for appropriate invocation scenarios.

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