exchange_code_for_tokens

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral details. It mentions the output tokens but omits important behaviors like single-use code consumption or redirect_uri matching requirements, leaving the agent without critical execution 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?

A single, focused sentence with no filler. Perfectly sized for the simple exchange operation.

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 description covers the basic function but lacks details about OAuth flow placement, error conditions, and code expiry. While the schema covers parameters, the absence of an output schema and behavioral context leaves gaps for an agent.

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 descriptions cover both parameters with clear meanings (authorization code and redirect URI), so the tool description adds no additional semantics. Baseline score of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 specifies the action (exchange) and the resource (authorization code for tokens). It distinguishes from siblings like get_oauth_url and refresh_access_token, which handle different parts of the OAuth lifecycle.

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 its use in the OAuth flow after obtaining a code, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention that refresh_access_token is for later token renewal. Context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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