RAG Source Auth ACI Handoff

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, but completing a source-auth handoff callback is an auth-finalizing action that plausibly mutates connection state. The description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or what completing the callback entails, and it contradicts the read-only annotation.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan and immediately actionable.

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 tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the description omits critical context such as when to call it in the auth flow, what happens after the callback, and expected return values. The read-only annotation conflict also undermines overall completeness.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'state' parameter, describing it as an 'Opaque state token from the auth redirect'. The description merely repeats 'returned state token' without adding extra meaning, format details, or lifecycle context.

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 ('Complete') and names the exact resource ('ACI source-auth hand-off callback'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling auth tools like lyzr_rag_source_auth_status and lyzr_rag_source_auth_sharepoint_authorize. It also identifies the key input ('returned state token').

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 context: it should be called after an auth redirect returns a state token. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling authorize/status tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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