complete_oauth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the exchange and return values, and mentions validating state, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., token storage, session changes), failure modes, or security implications. This is significant for a mutation-like OAuth operation.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is a standard OAuth exchange step, and the description covers the main action and return information. It lacks details on error scenarios or how tokens are handled, but given the simplicity and the context provided by sibling tools, it is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates partially by referring to 'an authorization code (and its state)', which maps to both code and state parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the expected format, source, or purpose of state (e.g., CSRF protection), leaving gaps for an agent.

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 clear verb ('Exchange') and resource ('authorization code') for tokens, and explicitly mentions the return value (practice name and patient context). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_practice and whoami, which serve different purposes in the OAuth flow.

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 its usage context: it should be used when you have an authorization code to exchange for tokens. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the OAuth flow context is clear and no misleading guidance is provided.

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