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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true), the description reveals important behavioral traits: the distinction between permanent non-expiring connections via config and session-only login via token, and that calling with no args returns a link. It also mentions a two-step flow (user pastes token) and provides a security-relevant detail about the token being a JWT. This adds context beyond what annotations offer, though it could be more explicit about side effects or state changes.

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 a single informative paragraph that front-loads the purpose and provides step-by-step context without excessive fluff. While slightly run-on, it remains concise and every sentence adds value. The structure could be improved with bullets or shorter sentences, but it is far from verbose.

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 an authentication tool, the description covers the essential flow: browser login, token retrieval, and both permanent and session-based setups. It addresses the target audience (IDE agents like Cursor) and mentions specific commands. It does not cover error handling or expiration details, but given the simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, it is adequately 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?

The schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT, when to pass it (after user pastes), and what happens if omitted (get link). It clarifies the parameter's purpose and format, turning an opaque schema into a usable interface.

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 with MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing specifically on authentication/login flow, and the verb 'authenticate' plus resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents) is specific and actionable.

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 guidance on two usage modes: permanent config-based authentication (adding to server config) and session-only login (passing token). It explains when to call with no args (get link) and with token (paste after receiving). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, missing a small opportunity for comparative guidance.

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