complete_auth

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses the exchange operation and transport-specific applicability. It implies mutation (token creation) but could mention idempotency or failure behavior. Still, it adds value beyond missing annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details, then transport note. Every sentence earns its place; no waste.

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 auth completion tool, the description covers all essentials: parameters, usage context, and transport differentiation. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Sibling start_auth is referenced.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description fully explains each parameter: session_id from start_auth response, code from user's browser. This adds critical meaning that the schema lacks.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finishes authentication by exchanging a browser code for a token. It identifies the specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like start_auth by noting the HTTP transport case.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: only for stdio/CLI, not HTTP transport with OAuth. It also explains where session_id and code come from, giving clear context for use.

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