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

The description explains the authentication flow: it provides a link for browser login, accepts a token, and supports both permanent and session-only configurations. It does not contradict annotations; annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with a non-destructive authentication tool. It could have mentioned that repeated calls are safe and idempotent, but the description already covers the main behavior.

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 but packed with useful information: the context (IDE agents), the browser login flow, the two login options, and how to invoke the tool. Every sentence adds value, and the structure flows logically from setup to invocation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 is quite complete. It explains the setup process, the two methods of using the token, and how to call the tool. The context signals indicate low complexity, and the description covers all necessary behavioral details for an agent to use it 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 has only one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description clarifies that the token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and explains the alternative of configuring it server-side. Although the description does not detail token format beyond 'jwt', it provides clear meaning for the parameter, which compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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: authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, while siblings handle connectivity, marketplace, preferences, bug reporting, version, and toolkit info.

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 the token to the server config as a permanent header, or alternatively paste the token for session-only login. It explains the two invocation modes: with a token parameter or without arguments to get the link. This clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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