sso_exchange_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (identity, email, groups, role) and the action, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or state changes, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, with the purpose stated first, followed by context (enterprise feature) and a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (identity, email, groups, role). It also notes enterprise feature and the parameter source. It could mention prerequisites like SSO being configured, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple exchange 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 0%, and the schema only provides the parameter name and type. The description adds crucial meaning by explaining that 'code' is the authorization code from the IdP callback, which is essential for correct usage.

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 an SSO authorization code for user identity and role'), specifies it's an enterprise feature, and distinguishes it from related tools like sso_login_url and sso_status by focusing on the code exchange step.

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 provides clear context: use after IdP login to exchange the auth code. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a specific tool.

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