nyx_exchange_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs token exchange, does not hold user credentials, and that the token carries user identity claims while remaining auditable. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth details, but is transparent about the core 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?

Two sentences only, with key information front-loaded. No wasted words, and every sentence adds value.

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 covers the purpose, mechanics, and security implications, but could mention prerequisites like existing delegation rights. Nonetheless, it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context beyond the schema, explaining the overall delegation and auditing aspects, which enhances understanding of how parameters like subject_user and audience are used.

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 tool's purpose: exchanging the agent's NyxID identity for a delegated access token bound to a downstream OIDC service, citing RFC 8693. It uses a specific verb ('exchange') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like nyx_list_services and nyx_proxy_request.

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 explains the use case: letting the agent call APIs on behalf of a user without holding long-lived credentials. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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