Exchange Salesforce OAuth2 Authorization Code for Tokens

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the access_token is masked in output (keeping it out of transcripts) and that refresh_token is long-lived. Error scenarios are detailed with actionable advice. No contradiction with 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?

The description is succinct with no superfluous text. Key sections are clearly separated: main action, parameter note, output details, error handling. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 token exchange, the description adequately covers the purpose, all parameters, return values (refresh_token, instance_url), behavior (access_token masked), and error cases. No output schema exists, but the description compensates. The agent can confidently use this tool.

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%, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies the sandbox parameter's effect (test.salesforce.com vs login.salesforce.com), implies that redirect_uri must match the one used previously, and explains that the code comes from the OAuth redirect. This enriches the bare schema descriptions.

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 exchanges an OAuth2 authorization code for tokens, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_get_oauth_auth_url and sf_get_token_password_flow. The verb 'exchange' and resource 'authorization code' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use it (after obtaining the code) and provides error-specific guidance (e.g., re-run sf_get_oauth_auth_url for invalid_grant). It also mentions the sandbox parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the password flow or other authentication tools, leaving some implicit use-case differentiation.

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