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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses the exact login flow, the meaning of a session-only login, and the non-expiring nature of the config-based token. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, then presenting the primary (best) and secondary usage paths. It's a bit verbose but every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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, the description covers both invocation modes, the authentication flow, and the token's role. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema, so this is acceptable. The description is complete for practical use.

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 has a 'token' string with no description. The description explains that the token is a JWT used for session-only login, and that the tool can be called with no args to get a link. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema, though it could be slightly more precise about expected token format.

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 by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by specifying it's for MCP.AI IDE agents and provides concrete steps (browser login, token copy).

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 explicit usage guidance by explaining two modes: permanent config-based auth vs session-only token paste. It also states the best practice (add to config) and the alternative, providing clear context for when each is appropriate.

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