opencode_provider_oauth_callback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not deliver: it says nothing about whether a token is stored, whether the provider must already be configured, side effects, or error conditions. Only the vague action 'handle' is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine but so terse that it functions as under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 an unexplained nested object payload, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete — it omits the callback data contract, prerequisites, and outcome, all of which an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, and one parameter is an untyped nested object (callbackData) whose expected contents are entirely unexplained. The description adds no information about either providerId or callbackData, leaving the caller to guess the payload shape.

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 resource (OAuth callback) and roughly what happens ('handle'), but the verb is vague and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling opencode_provider_oauth_authorize or explains the callback's role in the flow. An agent can infer intent from the name, but the description adds little beyond it.

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?

No guidance on when this is invoked versus opencode_provider_oauth_authorize, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., that an authorize call must precede it). The usage is only implied by the word 'callback'.

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