Exchange Withings OAuth Code

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

Annotations indicate mutability and non-idempotence. The description adds critical behavioral context: tokens are stored locally and never returned, and the exchange uses a signed request flow. 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?

Two well-structured sentences: the first states purpose and method, the second provides a critical usage constraint. No wasted words, all information 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?

For an OAuth token exchange tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core behavior (exchange, store, no return) and the need for user-supplied code. Minor omissions (e.g., overwrite behavior for existing tokens) are acceptable given the tool's relative simplicity.

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 50%. The description adds meaning for the 'code' parameter by requiring it to come from user action, but provides no additional information for 'response_format'. It compensates partially but not fully for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Exchange') and clearly identifies the resource ('OAuth authorization code for local tokens'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like withings_get_auth_url (which provides the URL) and withings_revoke_access (which revokes tokens).

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 explicitly requires user action ('the user must complete browser OAuth') and warns agents not to invent codes. It provides clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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