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

The description discloses key behaviors: two login modes (permanent config vs session token), the non-expiring nature of the header approach, and the fact that no args returns a browser link. This adds context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), though it omits error cases or side 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 concise and logically flows from the overall purpose to the two invocation modes. It includes relevant audience context but every sentence contributes to understanding. It could be slightly shorter by removing the 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' preamble, but it remains efficient.

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 tool without an output schema, it covers the essential behaviors: the two authentication paths, persistence characteristics, and the link-returning call. It does not detail the exact response for a token submission, but that is less critical given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' safety profile.

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 has only a bare 'token' string, and the description fully compensates by explaining it is an optional JWT, demonstrating the exact usage pattern '{ token: "<jwt>" }' and clarifying that omitting it provides a link. This is a strong semantic addition beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: authenticating IDE agents with MCP.AI via browser login and token handling. It goes beyond a simple verb+resource by outlining two distinct authentication flows, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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?

It provides clear 'how to use' guidance: either configuring a permanent header (best practice) or passing a token for session-only login, plus the no-args behavior to get a link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to determine applicability.

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