auth_exchange_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool exchanges a code for tokens, implying a write operation that modifies authentication state, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., token expiration), error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a security-sensitive OAuth tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Exchange OAuth authorization code for access tokens') without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of OAuth operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the access tokens are used for, how they are returned, or security implications, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'code' documented as 'Authorization code from OAuth redirect'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('exchange') and the resource ('OAuth authorization code for access tokens'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'auth_get_url' (which likely gets the authorization URL) and 'auth_revoke' (which revokes tokens), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that 'auth_get_url' should be used first to obtain the code), exclusions, or contextual cues for invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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