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

With annotations already covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds useful behavior: no args returns a link, passing a token creates a session-only login, and config-based tokens are permanent. It does not explain exact return values after token submission or error handling, but the key workflow is transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by actionable usage details. It is slightly wordy with phrases like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)', but every sentence contributes useful information and no content is wasted.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: getting the login link, submitting a token, and the recommended permanent configuration approach. It could be slightly more explicit about what happens after a token is submitted, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 only defines an undocumented optional string 'token', so the description carries the full burden. It fully explains the parameter's meaning: omit it to receive the login link, or pass the JWT after the user pastes it for session-only authentication. This compensates completely for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 this tool handles authentication for MCP.AI, with a specific login flow involving browser login and token exchange. It explicitly differentiates itself through token-based authentication and session vs. permanent configuration, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect'.

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 clearly explains when to use each invocation mode: no args to get the login link, token for session-only login, and config header for a permanent non-expiring connection. It provides clear context but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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