spotify_callback

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false), and the description adds useful context beyond them: this is a fallback completion step that requires an authorization code. It doesn't detail side effects like code expiry or single-use behavior, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage caveat immediately after. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 a one-parameter callback tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the fallback nature, the required input, and the preferred alternative. The only notable gap is that it doesn't mention what happens if the code is invalid or already consumed, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema only describes the parameter as "Code" with 0% coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does compensate by explicitly calling it an "authorization code," which gives the agent the essential semantic. It could add more detail about where the code comes from or that it may be single-use, but for a single-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 identifies the tool as the manual/legacy completion step for Spotify linking using an authorization code. It also distinguishes itself from the preferred automatic browser redirect flow, so an agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from the normal path.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: prefer the automatic browser redirect to /spotify/callback, and only call this tool if the redirect could not finish linking. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement with an explicit alternative.

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