g_set_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates it's a mutation action (setting code) but doesn't detail side effects, error conditions, or state changes beyond the intended use.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the key phrase 'Manual fallback'. Every word contributes value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and parameter roles. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention what happens on success or error.

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 coverage is 50% (redirect_uri has a description, code does not). The description explains that 'code' is the authorization code from authorize_url and 'redirect_uri' must match the one used to get the code, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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's purpose as a manual fallback to paste an authorization code. It specifies the verb 'paste' and the resource 'authorization code', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like g_authorize and g_auth_status by indicating it's for headless machines.

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 explicitly says 'Manual fallback' and specifies the use case: for headless machines where interactive authorization is not possible. It implies not to use this tool if interactive flow is available, though it doesn't name the alternative tool directly.

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