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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context beyond these: it explains the flow of logging in, copying a token, and the difference between permanent and session-only connections. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details like requiring a browser login for the token.

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 slightly long but well-structured: it opens with context, then clearly lists the three invocation scenarios. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the options are front-loaded. There is no redundancy, but it could be tightened by removing minor phrasing like 'copy the access token.' Overall, it's concise and easy to parse.

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 an authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: how to authenticate (browser), what to do with the token (config or session), and the behavior of calling with no args. It doesn't detail return values or error handling, but those are not required, and the description gives enough context for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has one parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT, how to pass it for session login, and that omitting it returns a login link. It clarifies the optional nature of the token and its purpose, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 purpose: authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the verb (authenticate), the resource (MCP.AI), and the audience (IDE agents like Cursor). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing solely on authentication, not other actions like connecting or reporting bugs.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each method: permanent via config header, session-only via token argument, or no args to get a link. It explains the recommended approach and differentiates between options, though it doesn't explicitly address when not to use this tool versus alternatives. This is clear enough for an agent to decide how to invoke it.

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