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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context beyond that: it details the authentication flow (browser login, copy token, add to config or paste here) and explains session vs. permanent behavior. It doesn't contradict 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 informative but slightly verbose, containing two sentences with detailed instructions. It front-loads the main purpose and then explains the two usage modes. A bit verbose but earning its place with necessary details.

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 complexity (authentication flow), the description adequately explains the process and both usage modes. The output schema is absent, but the description hints at what happens (returns a link when no args, likely confirms login with token). It covers the essential context for a tool with low schema coverage.

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 only one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the 'token' parameter is for pasting a JWT for session-only login, and that calling with no args gives the link. This adds 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 purpose: authenticate by logging into the browser to obtain an access token, for use with IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and the resource (this server's config or session), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning IDE agents and the use of an Authorization header.

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 explains when to use the tool: after the user pastes a token, or with no args to get the link. It also provides alternative options (permanent config vs. session-only), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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