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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds behavioral details: it explains the permanent vs session-only nature (persistence), how to trigger the login link, and the parameter usage. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context about the token lifecycle.

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 two sentences long, but the first sentence packs a lot of context ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') that may be slightly ambiguous. It is still structured clearly, with the main flow and alternatives in logical order, and no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage and parameters. It doesn't explain return values, but none are specified in the schema, so that is acceptable. It could mention what happens if token is invalid, but overall it's complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must fully explain the only parameter 'token'. It explicitly states that calling with { token: '<jwt>' } is for session login after pasting, and that calling with no args returns the link. This gives complete semantic meaning 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 it is for authenticating (logging in, getting/passing an access token). It's specific about the MCP.AI context for IDE agents sterile and details two usage modes josé, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect' which might also handle connections.

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?

Provides clear instructions: browser login, copy token, best practice of adding to config as permanent header, or pasting via parameter for session-only. Also explains calling with no args returns the link. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'connect' or state when not to use this tool.

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