exchange_code_for_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool exchanges a code for tokens, but does not mention that the authorization code is typically single-use, that this is a security-sensitive OAuth step, or any side effects or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a token-related 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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or unnecessary repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with a clear purpose, the description is mostly complete: it names the output (access and refresh tokens) and the core action. However, without an output schema or annotations, a brief note on the one-time nature of the code or success/failure behavior would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate for a simple OAuth exchange.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (code and redirect_uri), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already defines, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance 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 clearly states the specific action: exchange an authorization code for tokens, using the verb 'Exchange' and identifying both inputs (authorization code) and outputs (access and refresh tokens). It is distinct from the sibling tool 'refresh_access_token' and the other related tools.

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 implies the use case (after obtaining an authorization code, before using tokens) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like refresh_access_token or get_oauth_url. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, but the context and function name make the primary use clear.

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