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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that no-arg calls return a login link, token calls create a session-only login, and the header approach provides a permanent non-expiring connection. These behavioral details align with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, with no contradictions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, using 'Best:' and 'Or:' to structure two distinct auth paths. Both sentences earn their place, though the second sentence is somewhat dense in its juxtaposition of config and session-only options.

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 one-optional-param authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, token semantics, no-arg behavior, and permanent vs session-only options. It omits response/error details, but those are not critical given the tool's low complexity and adequate annotations.

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 lists an optional string 'token' with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that token is a JWT, shows the call shape { token: "<jwt>" }, and clarifies that omitting it returns the login link. This fully compensates 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 the action: logging in to MCP.AI for IDE agents and obtaining/copying an access token. It is specific about the resource and context (Cursor, etc.), and while it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like 'connect', it is distinguishable as the authentication 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 gives concrete usage paths: use the config header for a permanent non-expiring connection, or pass a token for a session-only login, or call with no args to get the link. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct contrast with alternative tools, but the guidance is actionable and context-rich.

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