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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains that config-based auth is permanent and non-expiring while pasted tokens are session-only, and that calling with no args yields a link. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It packs in essential details without redundancy, though it is slightly long. It earns its place with no wasted words.

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 an authentication tool with minimal schema and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow: how to get a link, accept a token, and the two persistence modes. It does not describe error handling or invalid token behavior, but that is not critical for a first-time invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'token' parameter. It clarifies that it is a JWT to be pasted from the browser, and that omitting it triggers a link generation. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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's purpose: to log in via browser, copy an access token, and provide ways to persist or use it for session-only access. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication, not broader connections. The 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?

The description gives explicit usage context: it explains both config-based permanent login and session-only token pasting, and clarifies when to call with or without the token. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like 'connect', leaving some implicit guidance.

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