Exchange Fitbit OAuth Code

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating tokens are stored with 0600 permissions and never returned. This discloses important security and side-effect details. Annotations are minimal (no destructive or read-only hints), so the description fills the gap.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word is necessary and informative.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key behavior (storing tokens). However, it omits context like error cases, prerequisite steps, or the fact that it is part of a multi-step OAuth flow.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'code' described). The description does not elaborate on parameters; it adds no meaning beyond the schema. With incomplete schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 a Fitbit OAuth authorization code for local tokens. It specifies the action and outcome, distinguishing it from other tools like fitbit_get_auth_url which generates the code. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having obtained the authorization code), nor does it indicate when to use it over other auth-related tools like fitbit_get_auth_url or fitbit_revoke_access.

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