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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context: pasted tokens are session-only, no-args returns a login link, and config-based tokens are permanent and non-expiring. It does not detail return values or failure modes, but the added context goes beyond annotations.

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 three sentences with clear structure ('Best:', 'Or:') and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes necessary context without redundancy.

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 one-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the login flow, token usage, and the permanent-config alternative. It lacks error-handling or prerequisite details, but the core usage is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the single optional token parameter as a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it triggers the login-link flow. This is complete and unambiguous.

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 authenticates IDE agents to MCP.AI via browser login and token exchange. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication and explicitly describing the two login modes (config header vs session token).

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 explicitly recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection versus using the tool for a session-only login. It also clarifies when to call with a token versus with no arguments to get the login link.

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