myob_oauth_exchange_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key side effect—storing encrypted tokens—which signals a write operation and persistence. However, it doesn't mention whether existing tokens are overwritten, what happens on failure, or any security/auth requirements beyond the exchange itself. The disclosure of 'encrypted' is useful but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, target, and outcome. No filler words or redundant information, making it highly scannable and efficient for an agent to parse.

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 OAuth flow is inherently complex and involves multiple steps (authorize, exchange, refresh). This description gives only the bare action without explaining the surrounding context, expected return format, failure modes, or prerequisites. Given no annotations and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke this tool correctly in a broader workflow.

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 description adds meaning to 'code' (OAuth code) and 'business_id' (one MYOB business), which helps map to the schema. However, it does not explain the 'state' parameter at all, despite the schema having a default of null. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for one parameter and does not specify formats or how to obtain the code.

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 identifies the resource ('OAuth code for one MYOB business') and the outcome ('store encrypted tokens'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'myob_oauth_authorize' or 'myob_oauth_refresh' by emphasizing the manual exchange for a single business, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisite steps (e.g., obtaining the OAuth code) or under what circumstances a manual exchange is preferred over automated flows. Sibling tools like 'myob_oauth_authorize_business' and 'myob_oauth_exchange_redirect_url' underscore the need for context, but the description remains silent.

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