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

The description discloses that the tool initiates a browser login and returns a link, and that tokens can be stored permanently or used for a session. It does not contradict annotations (idempotentHint=true is consistent with repeated calls being safe). It adds context about the token's non-expiring nature when configured, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It packs a lot of information into two sentences, but the second sentence is a bit dense with multiple clauses. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 param, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage modes and the authentication flow. It could mention what the response looks like (e.g., success message) but that's not critical for an auth tool. The description is complete enough 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 one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description explains that 'token' is a JWT to paste for session-only login, and that calling with no args returns the link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about the token format and validation.

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 IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the authentication flow and the two modes (permanent config vs session-only).

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 guidance on when to use this tool: to log in and obtain a token, with clear instructions for both permanent (config header) and session-only (paste token) usage. It also explains the no-args call to get the link, covering all usage scenarios.

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