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

The description discloses key behaviors: it can establish a permanent non-expiring connection or a session-only login, and calling with no arguments returns a login link. This complements the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) without contradicting them, though it doesn't mention any potential side effects on server config.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, presenting two clear options (permanent config and session-only) with a recommendation. It includes a contextual note about IDE agents but remains focused and readable.

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?

While the description explains the authentication workflow and the behavior for no-argument calls (returning a link), it does not specify what the tool returns when called with a token (e.g., success status or session confirmation). This leaves some ambiguity about the output for a token-based call.

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 description explicitly clarifies the meaning of the 'token' parameter: it is a JWT (JSON Web Token) obtained from the browser, used for session-only login. This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema which only specifies 'type: string'.

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 of authentication for IDE agents, explaining the login process and how to obtain an access token. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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 detailed usage instructions: it explains two methods (permanent config via token, or session-only via pasting token) and specifies when to call with or without the token argument. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, though the context makes its primary use clear.

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