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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it opens a browser login, returns a link when called with no args, and exhibits session-only behavior when a token is provided. This goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint) by explaining the actual authentication workflow.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph. It's front-loaded with the tool's purpose and quickly moves through usage options. While not overly long, it could be structured with bullets for even faster scanning, but overall it's efficient.

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 token parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: authentication method, token handling, and comparison of persistent vs. session-based login. It could mention what happens after successful authentication (e.g., success message or stored session), but this is minor.

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 only lists a 'token' string, but the description adds critical semantics: using { token: "<jwt>" } for session login and no-arg calls for generating a link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 an MCP.AI server for IDE agents. It uses specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token', and names the resource ('MCP.AI', 'server's config'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (connect, toolkit_info) by focusing on authentication flow.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after user pastes a token, or without arguments to get a login link. It also explains the recommended persistent configuration method versus the session-only approach, effectively covering when and how to use each.

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