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

The description discloses key behavior beyond the annotations, such as the difference between permanent config and session-only login, and the fact that a user pasted token is needed. It is idempotent and non-destructive per annotations, which the description does not contradict.

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 a compact paragraph of a few sentences, each carrying useful information. The mention of 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' adds some context but a little noise; still, nothing is bloated.

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?

The tool has minimal schema and no output schema, so the description carries most of the load. It sufficiently explains the two call modes and the config alternative, though it does not explicitly say what a successful token call returns.

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 provides no description for 'token', but the description fully compensates: it clarifies that the JWT is the token pasted by the user and that omitting the token returns the login link. This gives the agent clear invocation semantics.

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 identifies an authentication flow: getting a login link or passing a JWT token. It is not tautological and points to a specific action and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect' tool.

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 variants: no args to retrieve the link, token arg for session-only auth, and a recommended permanent config path. This is useful guidance, although it does not mention when not to use the tool relative to sibling tools.

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