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

The description discloses behavioral details: it can modify server config (permanent) or work session-only, and calling with no args returns a link. It does not mention all side effects, but annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness.

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 relatively concise, using two sentences to cover both usage modes and the parameter. However, it is slightly wordy with phrases like 'Best:' and 'Or,' but remains clear and well-structured.

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 simplicity, the description is complete: it explains both authentication flows, the token parameter, and the no-arg call. It does not require additional context for correct usage.

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 input schema has one property (token) with no description, but the description explains the token is a JWT and indicates it can be omitted (no args) to get a link. This fully covers the parameter's meaning and usage.

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: authentication for IDE agents. It explains two methods (permanent config and session-only) and provides clear steps, distinguishing it from other tools.

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 gives explicit usage instructions, including when to use permanent vs. session-only login and how to call with or without a token. However, it does not compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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