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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: permanent non-expiring header connection vs session-only login. It also clarifies the token is a JWT and that calling with no args returns the login link, adding side-effect context beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value: browser login, token copy, permanent vs session options, and no-args behavior. No wasted words.

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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the flow, token persistence options, and the two invocation modes. It does not describe return values or failure handling, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the token parameter is a JWT, shows the exact invocation shape { token: "<jwt>" }, and states that omitting it yields the login link, which is meaningful semantic context beyond the raw optional string property.

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 immediately states the tool performs authentication for MCP.AI with IDE agents, explaining the browser login and token copy flow. It names the concrete action 'log in in the browser, copy the access token,' which clearly distinguishes this auth/credential tool from sibling tools like connect and marketplace.

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?

It gives explicit usage modes: recommended permanent config header, session-only token paste, or no-args call to get a link. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as connect, but the practical when-to-use guidance is strong.

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