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

Beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: permanent non-expiring connection vs session-only login, token format, and the no-args link behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides the agent with a realistic model of the tool's effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then moves efficiently through the two login methods. Every sentence adds actionable information with no padding or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary actions, token format, configuration alternative, and no-arg behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for the single token parameter. It explains exactly how to use it: call with { token: "<jwt>" } for session login, or omit it to get the link. This fully compensates for the schema lacking parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool authenticates an MCP.AI server for IDE agents, with a concrete workflow: logging in via browser, copying a token, and calling with optional token or no arguments to get a link. It identifies the specific resource (MCP.AI authentication) and the actionable verb (log in/get token), distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like connect.

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 two usage modes: configuring the token permanently as an Authorization header, or pasting it for session-only login. It also specifies that calling with no arguments returns the login link. This gives the agent clear guidance on when and how to invoke the tool, including the 'Best' vs 'Or' choice.

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