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

Annotations indicate idempotent (true) and destructive (false), but the description adds critical behavioral details: adding to config yields a non-expiring connection, while pasting gives a session-only login. It also mentions the process of getting the link, which goes beyond the 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 concise but slightly verbose with multiple options, yet it remains well-structured: first the generic process, then the recommended permanent method, then the session-only alternative. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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 description provides enough context to use the tool correctly, including prerequisites (user must log in and copy token) and two usage modes. It does not specify the output/return value, but given the absence of an output schema and the nature of an authentication tool, this is acceptable.

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 description fully explains the 'token' parameter: it is the JWT to paste, and it elaborates on the invocation scenario ('call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes'). Even though the schema lacks a description, the tool description compensates completely.

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 as authentication for MCP.AI with IDE agents, providing explicit steps (log in, copy token) and options for using it. It is distinct from the sibling tools (e.g., connect, show_version) by focusing on login/token management.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: it recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It also clarifies invocation patterns (with token or no args to get the link), giving clear usage guidance.

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