trakt_complete_auth

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no further behavioral context. There is no mention of what happens on invalid/expired codes, whether tokens are stored, or if prior steps are required, leaving the agent to guess the side effects beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Complete') and resource ('Trakt.tv authentication') with the required input ('authorization code'). No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it misses the broader OAuth flow context, such as the need to call trakt_authenticate first and what constitutes success or failure, which would help the agent understand the tool's place among siblings.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'code' parameter with a clear description ('Authorization code from Trakt OAuth callback'). The tool description merely repeats the phrase 'authorization code' without adding syntax, format, or lifecycle details, so the schema carries the meaning.

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 tool completes Trakt.tv authentication using an authorization code, which is a specific verb+resource+means construction. It distinguishes from siblings like trakt_authenticate by indicating this is the completion step, though it doesn't explicitly name the counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied—the agent can infer this tool is used when an authorization code is available, likely after an initial authentication request. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like trakt_authenticate or trakt_get_auth_status, nor any prerequisites.

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