oauth_access

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'exchange' but omits side effects, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context.

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 a single 12-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices substance for brevity, leaving important details missing.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks crucial context for an OAuth token exchange, such as the overall flow, prerequisite steps, and what the response contains. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional knowledge.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The term 'code' hints at the verifier code, but client_id, client_secret, redirect_uri, and single_channel are left entirely unexplained.

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') and the resource ('temporary OAuth verifier code for an access token'). The '(V1)' suffix differentiates it from sibling OAuth v2 tools, making the 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 usage for V1 OAuth flows but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like oauth_v2_access. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is provided.

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