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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it explains the two-step flow (get link → paste token) and the difference between permanent (config header) and session-only (token arg) authentication. It does not contradict the annotations and offers useful details about the login process.

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 brief, two sentences, and front-loads the purpose. It efficiently covers the primary action and both usage modes without redundancy. Every sentence contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 a moderate complexity due to the two-step authentication flow, and the description explains both modes (permanent and session). It does not explicitly state what happens after a successful token submission (e.g., confirmation message), but it's implied by 'session-only login'. For a simple auth tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete, though a note on return values would elevate it.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining its meaning: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes' and clarifies that calling with no args yields the link. This adds crucial semantics beyond the bare 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: to authenticate an IDE agent with MCP.AI. It specifies the action (log in, get token) and the resource (MCP.AI server for IDE agents). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on authentication only, and the wording is specific and non-tautological.

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 provides clear usage instructions: call with no args to get a link, or call with a token for session-only login. It also mentions the best practice for a permanent connection via config. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'connect', so it lacks explicit exclusions but gives sufficient context.

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