auth_finish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a session is activated (a side effect), but gives no details about token storage, idempotency, security requirements, or error behavior. For an OAuth token exchange, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action efficiently, though it omits depth. This is appropriately sized for a simple purpose statement.

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?

Given this is an OAuth completion step with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the prerequisites (e.g., call auth_start first), the need for the state parameter, or the security-sensitive nature of exchanging codes. The output schema exists but does not replace this missing context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly maps 'authorization code' to the code parameter, but does not explain the required 'state' parameter's purpose (e.g., CSRF protection) or the role of 'client_secret'.

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 ('Exchange'), a specific resource ('authorization code'), and a clear outcome ('activate session'). This distinguishes auth_finish from siblings like auth_start (which would begin the flow) and auth_set_access_token (which sets a token directly).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention auth_start as a prerequisite or auth_set_access_token as an alternative, nor any condition that would select one over the other. The context is entirely absent.

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