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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the two authentication modes (permanent via config vs session-only), the fact that the config method is 'permanent, non-expiring', and that calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond the simple idempotentHint and clarifies the side effects of each call method.

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, fitting all necessary information into three sentences. It is somewhat run-on but still readable. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the two invocation modes. It earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers both practical use cases (permanent and session-based), explains the dependency on browser login, and tells the agent how to call the tool. It could have mentioned potential errors or rate limits, but these are less relevant for an auth tool.

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 only says 'token' is a string with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT to be passed after the user pastes it, and that omitting it triggers a link generation. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare 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 MCP.AI for IDE agents. It uses a specific verb ('log in') and resource ('MCP.AI'), and explains the overall flow. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on authentication, setting the session vs. permanent token choice.

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 when-to-use guidance: call with no args to get the link, or pass the token after the user pastes it. It also mentions the alternative of adding the token to the server's config for a permanent connection, which is a form of alternative configuration. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use this tool or directly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect'.

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