nexus_oauth_exchange

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

The description discloses meaningful side effects: tokens are saved to a token file, identity is validated with the resulting Bearer token, tokens auto-refresh, and 4xx refresh responses are treated as revocation. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a compact description of mechanics, a note on refresh behavior, and a return summary. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or padding.

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 full invocation context: what it exchanges, how it authenticates, where tokens are stored, how refresh failures behave, and what it returns. Combined with full schema coverage and the output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema already covers both parameters fully: code and state are described with origin and verification behavior. The tool description adds process context around PKCE and client_secret but does not materially enhance parameter-level understanding, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'exchange the authorization code for tokens,' clearly identifying this as the OAuth token exchange step. It also clarifies the tool completes the OAuth2 flow and validates identity, which distinguishes it from related OAuth siblings like login, refresh, status, and logout.

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 clearly signals this is the post-redirect step by mentioning the authorization code and PKCE exchange, and the schema explicitly references the 'OAuth redirect after nexus_oauth_login.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended usage context is unmistakable.

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