Exchange Oura OAuth Code

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

Beyond annotations (which show no destructive or read-only hints), the description adds important behavioral context: tokens are stored locally with 0600 permissions and are never returned. This informs the agent of side effects that are not captured by annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value.

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 core action and behavioral traits. However, it omits specifics about the return value (though output schema exists) and prerequisites like needing an auth code from oura_get_auth_url. Still, overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%: the 'code' parameter has a clear description, and 'response_format' has enum/default. The description does not add additional parameter details, so it relies on the schema.

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 verb 'Exchange' and the resource 'Oura OAuth authorization code', specifying that tokens are stored locally with permissions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oura_get_auth_url and data retrieval tools.

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 usage as part of OAuth flow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if tokens already exist). No alternative tools are mentioned.

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