Complete an OAuth connect flow with the code and state from the redirect (201)

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

This is the strongest part of the description, as it adds critical safety behavioral traits not covered by annotations. It explicitly warns that the operation is a WRITE and has no server-side dry run, which is crucial for an agent attempting an OAuth connection.

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 definition is extremely concise and efficient. Both sentences serve a clear purpose: describing the functionality and issuing a critical operational warning, avoiding any unnecessary filler.

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 the platform enum and nested body structure, the description successfully covers the functional and safety requirements. It informs the agent exactly *how* this tool must be used in the overall OAuth workflow to avoid unintended consequences.

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?

While the schema is technically detailed, the description provides essential technical meaning, such as the use of a POST request and the specific API endpoint structure. It also explains the functional role of the `confirm` boolean parameter.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as completing an OAuth flow using specific inputs like code and state. By naming the method and endpoint structure, it clearly defines its function within the API flow. It is distinguished from starting the flow, which would be in a sibling tool.

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?

It provides excellent guidance by contextualizing the use case (redirect handling) and emphasizing the required `confirm: true` for actual execution. This strongly implies that if this parameter is omitted, the tool acts as a validation/preview rather than an execution tool.

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