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

Annotations declare idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds context beyond that: it explains that calling with no args yields a link, and that the config method is best for permanent access. It clarifies the two login modes and the token format, without contradicting any 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 compact yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently explains the two usage options and the no-arg behavior. Every sentence adds value—no redundant phrases or filler.

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), the description fully covers behavior, usage scenarios, and the meaning of the token. No output schema is needed since the tool likely returns a link or confirmation, which the description hints at. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 one optional 'token' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT obtained after browser login, and how to use it in the call ('call with { token: "<jwt>" }'). It also clarifies that the parameter is optional and what happens without it, adding meaning beyond the 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 authenticates the user for MCP.AI IDE agents, with specifics: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It also distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication flow, and mentions two distinct usage modes (config vs session). Verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each method: adding the token to server config for a permanent non-expiring connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. Also explains calling with no args to get a link. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with sibling 'connect', so slightly below perfect.

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