finish_authentication

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool polls while the user approves in the browser, that wait_seconds=0 performs a single check and reports whether approval is still pending, and that this is preferable in interactive contexts. This adds meaningful behavioral detail without contradicting the idempotentHint or other 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by tightly scoped parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes the parameter semantics easy to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description covers the call sequence, parameter behavior, default recommendation, and what a zero-wait call reports. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining device_code as the value returned by start_authentication and precisely defining wait_seconds as the polling duration, with 0 meaning a single status check. This is exactly the guidance the agent needs for both parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Exchange an approved device code for a stored token.' This clearly identifies the OAuth device-flow completion step and distinguishes it from related operations like start_authentication or get_authentication_status by tying it to the device_code returned by start_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 establishes clear sequencing by stating the device_code comes from start_authentication and explains when to use wait_seconds=0 versus longer polling, including a recommendation for interactive sessions. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage context is unambiguous.

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