Exchange Strava OAuth Code

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a nondestructive write operation. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: tokens are stored locally with '0600 permissions' and are 'never returned,' which clarifies security and output behavior. No contradiction with 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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences. Every sentence provides essential information: the primary action and key behavioral constraints (permissions, non-return of tokens). There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple OAuth exchange tool with an output schema present, the description covers the critical points: what it does, the security of token storage, and the fact that tokens are not returned. It does not explain the output format or what the response contains, but the output schema likely handles that.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters well: 'code' accepts an OAuth code or full redirect URL, and 'response_format' has an enum with default. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. The behavioral context about token storage is not parameter-specific.

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 a Strava OAuth authorization code for local tokens.' It specifies the verb (Exchange), the resource (OAuth authorization code), and the outcome (local tokens). It is distinct from siblings like strava_get_auth_url (which provides the code) and strava_revoke_access (revoke tokens), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 that this tool should be used after obtaining an OAuth authorization code, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or mention alternative tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, such as indicating it follows strava_get_auth_url.

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