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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the config-header approach creates a permanent, non-expiring connection, while pasting the token yields session-only login, and no-args returns a link. This adds practical behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations, though response/error behavior is not covered.

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 dense but well-structured, beginning with the tool's context and then laying out two clear usage paths. Each sentence contributes actionable information, though the final sentence is slightly long and combines multiple behaviors.

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?

With only one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations already indicating idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description covers the key login/token workflow and permanent-vs-session distinction. It does not describe the success/failure response, but the auth flow is otherwise sufficiently specified.

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 only defines an optional token string with no description. The description compensates by specifying the token is a JWT pasted by the user and that calling with no args produces an authentication link. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in, obtaining an access token, and using it either as a header or as a passed token. It specifies the resource and action with concrete steps, and differentiates from generic 'connect' by focusing on browser login and token handling.

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 scenarios: permanent connection via config header, session-only login via pasted token, or no-args call to get the link. It provides clear context and mode selection, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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