exchange_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 clearly states the core exchange behavior and the legacy alias status, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or deprecation details beyond the term 'legacy'.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the 'legacy alias' is vague—it does not reference the canonical tool (likely 'complete_code_exchange' from the sibling list), leaving the broader context incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'OAuth authorization code' aligns with the 'code' parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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') with a clear resource ('OAuth authorization code') and outcome ('for access and refresh tokens'). The phrase 'legacy alias' distinguishes it from likely non-legacy alternatives, making the tool's role clear.

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 implies that this is a legacy alias, suggesting there is a preferred alternative, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when to use this tool vs. another. This is implied usage guidance, not explicit.

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