mf_auth_callback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the exchanged token is persisted for later calls, whether it expires, or what happens on an invalid/expired code, which matters for an OAuth token-exchange step.

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?

One sentence with the core action front-loaded and the usage context in a compact parenthetical. No wasted text, though the parenthetical is doing double duty for missing usage guidance.

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 flow step in a family of auth siblings with no output schema, the description should state the return value (access token, and whether it is stored) and the flow ordering. It conveys the exchange but leaves the surrounding flow context for the agent to infer.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the required auth code. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it obtains an access token from an authorization code. That is clear and distinct from the sibling token tools (mf_auth_start, mf_refresh_token), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'used after authentication in OOB mode' implies the calling context, but it does not state the prerequisite chain (that mf_auth_start must precede it) or how it differs from mf_refresh_token, which is the obvious alternative for obtaining tokens.

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