finish_account_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly mentions the side effect of 'storing token.json' and the exchange of an authorization code, but does not disclose potential failure modes, whether it overwrites an existing token, or prerequisites beyond what is implied by the schema.

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 front-loads the purpose and includes the key side effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose and primary side effect. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly mentioning the prerequisite relationship to 'begin_account_auth', but the context is strongly implied and sufficient for an agent.

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% for both parameters, so the description need not add additional parameter detail. The description does not introduce semantics beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 function with a specific verb ('Complete'), the resource ('OAuth onboarding'), and the mechanism ('exchanging authorization code and storing token.json'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool 'begin_account_auth' by indicating completion of the flow.

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 usage context through the word 'Complete' and the reference to 'authorization code', suggesting it follows 'begin_account_auth'. However, it does not explicitly state 'use after begin_account_auth' or mention exclusions, though the sibling tool name and schema description for account_id provide strong contextual cues.

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