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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are already disclosed. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that the tool does not require the token to be passed every time (config option for permanent connection), that it can be called with no args to get a link, and clarifies the session vs permanent distinction. This goes beyond the annotations' basic hints.

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, moderately long paragraph but is front-loaded with purpose and includes actionable instructions. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds value, explaining the flow and both usage modes. No redundancy, though it could be split into bullet points for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple authentication flows), the description covers all needed aspects: how to log in, obtain token, and use it for permanent or session-based access, including the no-arg call for the link. There is no output schema to worry about, and the description is sufficient for an agent to call this 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?

The schema defines only one property (token) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the token parameter: it should be a JWT string pasted by the user for session-only login, and that omitting it triggers a different behavior (getting a login link). This adds significant meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to authenticate an MCP.AI IDE agent by logging in and obtaining an access token, with two methods of use. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on login/authentication, while siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' serve different functions, though no explicit sibling differentiation is provided.

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 explicit usage guidance: best practice is to add token to config for permanent connection, or paste token for session-only login, and instructions for calling with or without arguments. It also tells users when to use each approach, clearly differentiating between permanent and session-based authentication.

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