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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about persistence (permanent vs session) and the token source (browser). No contradictions with annotations. Could mention error behavior or permission details but is adequate.

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?

Description is relatively long but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose. Could trim some redundancy (e.g., 'Best: add it...' is slightly conversational) but structure is logical.

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 simple authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both usage modes and token acquisition. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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?

Schema has only one optional string parameter with 0% described. Description fully compensates: explains token is a JWT, how to obtain it, and that omitting token returns a login link. Adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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 specifies the tool's role: authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents. It distinguishes two login methods (permanent config vs session token) and the option to call without arguments to get a login link. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'connect'.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: permanent token via config for non-expiring access, or session-only token by pasting JWT. Also explains calling with no args to get link. Does not explicitly list exclusions or when not to use, but context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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