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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about token persistence (permanent non-expiring vs session-only) and explains the no-args behavior to get a link. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies side effects (e.g., token storage). No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, but information-dense. The first sentence sets context, the second explains permanent setup, the third explains session-only and no-args behavior. Slightly verbose but each part earns its place; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, both token acquisition methods, and configuration options. It doesn't describe response format or error handling, but these are less critical for auth and not obvious from schema. Given the complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema has one optional string parameter with no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that 'token' should be a JWT, that it's optional, and that calling with no args returns a link. It adds semantic 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 that this tool authenticates MCP.AI for IDE agents like Cursor, explaining what it does: log in via browser, copy token, and configure connection. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by detailing the specific authentication workflow and two modes (permanent config vs session token).

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use guidance: for authentication setup. It describes two alternatives (add as Authorization header for permanent connection, or pass token for session-only) and recommends the best practice. This is better than simply stating 'use for auth' and helps the agent decide.

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