exchange_token

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions a configuration requirement but does not state what the exchange does beyond the token conversion, whether it is a read-only operation, what the response contains, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an authentication-related 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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: one states the core function, the other notes a necessary configuration. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the main action and a key requirement. However, it omits information about the returned token, potential errors, and the broader context of when to use this exchange. Since there are no annotations or output schema, the description could be more complete, earning a mid-range score.

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 schema describes the parameter 'short_lived_token' fully (100% coverage), and the description's phrase 'short-lived access token' aligns with the schema. The description does not add extra semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific resources ('short-lived access token' to 'long-lived token'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is specific enough to distinguish from related token tools like refresh_token and debug_token, even though alternatives aren't named.

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 usage context (when you have a short-lived token and need a long-lived one) and provides a key prerequisite (META_APP_ID and META_APP_SECRET configured). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus refresh_token or debug_token, nor any exclusions.

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