finish_authentication

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the result is a stored session key rather than just a return value. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or what happens if the token is invalid, and the annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the parameter explanation directly follows in a clear, scannable format.

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 single-parameter authentication-completion tool, the description contains everything needed to invoke it correctly. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are already covered elsewhere, and no further prerequisites or caveats are essential for this step.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the only parameter: token is the one returned by start_authentication after browser approval. This adds essential provenance and precondition information that the raw schema property name 'Token' does not provide.

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 action ('Exchange an approved token for a stored session key') and identifies the exact resource involved. It clearly reads as the completion step in an authentication flow, distinguishing it from siblings like start_authentication, get_authentication_status, and clear_authentication.

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 gives clear usage context: the token must come from start_authentication and be approved in the browser before being passed. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sequential guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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