Auth Exchange Code

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose one important side effect — 'Tokens are stored in the local profile' — which tells the agent this is a write/persist operation. It says nothing about overwriting existing tokens, code expiry, one-time use, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the sequencing instruction. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the prerequisite step and the persistence side effect. For a single-parameter auth step this is nearly sufficient, missing only failure/expiry guidance.

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 0% and the single `code` property has no description, so the description must compensate — and it does by specifying that the code is the OAuth authorization code obtained from the redirect address after auth_get_login_url. That is genuine meaning beyond the bare string type, though it doesn't describe format or validity constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Exchange an hh.ru OAuth authorization code for token pair.' This clearly separates it from the sibling auth tools (auth_get_login_url, auth_status, auth_logout) without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Explicitly places the tool in a flow: 'Use after auth_get_login_url' and tells the caller where the input comes from ('copied from the redirect address'). It lacks a when-not or failure-path note (e.g., what to do if the code is expired or already used), so it falls short of a 5.

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