Exchange WHOOP OAuth Code

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing that tokens are stored locally with 0600 permissions and are never returned. This adds valuable behavioral context that the annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint=false) do not fully capture, ensuring the agent understands side effects and security considerations.

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 with two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: explaining the action and providing critical behavioral constraints. No filler words, and the most important information (exchange action and gating) is front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core exchange functionality and token handling. However, it omits mention of the required prerequisite step (obtaining an authorization code via whoop_get_auth_url) and does not address potential error conditions, slightly reducing completeness for an AI agent unfamiliar with the 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?

The input schema has 50% description coverage, covering only the 'code' parameter. The tool's description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, particularly leaving 'response_format' undocumented. The agent would benefit from explicit explanation of response_format options and their implications.

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 an OAuth authorization code for local tokens. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like whoop_get_auth_url, which would benefit an AI agent in understanding the tool's place in the OAuth flow.

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 a strong usage guideline by stating the tool is gated and requires explicit user intent, prohibiting autonomous calls. However, it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as indicating it should follow whoop_get_auth_url.

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