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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, meaning repeated calls are safe. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that calling with no args returns a login link, calling with a token establishes a session, and it warns about token expiry (session-only vs permanent). It doesn't contradict annotations; it complements them by detailing the flow and outcomes.

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 sentence but packs multiple instructions (login link, token paste, permanent vs session). It's slightly dense but front-loads the primary purpose and uses parentheses for secondary details, keeping it structured. Could be split for readability but remains 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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential flow: how to authenticate, two methods (config vs session), and the call variants. It doesn't describe return values, but since there's no output schema (output likely a URL or success message), the absence is acceptable. Idempotency is implied by annotations and description's clarity.

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 (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the token's purpose: to be pasted after the user copies it from the browser. It clarifies that the token is a JWT and that omitting it triggers a link generation, adding 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: authenticating IDE agents like Cursor via browser login and token exchange. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on token-based authentication for the MCP server.

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 when-to-use guidance: use for logging in to the MCP server, either via a permanent config header or a session-based token. It also explains the two invocation modes (with or without token) and contrasts with alternatives like 'connect' for general connectivity, making usage clear.

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