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

The description transparently explains the two main behaviors: calling without args returns a login link, and calling with a token authenticates. It aligns with the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and does not contradict them, offering clear expectations.

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 verbose and includes extraneous text like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' and multiple usage hints. It lacks a clear structure, making it harder to parse the essential information about the tool's behavior.

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?

While the two invocation modes are covered, the description omits details about the return value when a token is provided, error handling, or the authentication outcome. Given the simple schema, it is moderately complete but leaves gaps.

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 token parameter is partially explained: it is described as a JWT and optional, with instructions to paste it. However, the schema lacks a description, and the semantics of what the token does (authentication) are only implicitly conveyed.

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 indicates the tool is for authentication, mentioning login and token usage, but it is phrased as user instructions rather than a clear statement of the tool's function. The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated, reducing clarity.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect' or other sibling tools. It provides detailed invocation steps (with or without token), but lacks guidance on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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