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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond this: the token is a JWT, no-args returns the login link, the config-header approach is permanent and non-expiring, and pasting a token gives session-only authentication. This does not contradict any annotation.

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, each carrying distinct information: the browser login context, the permanent config-header option, and the session-token call shape. It is slightly wordy but well structured with 'Best' and 'Or', and avoids redundancy.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both authentication flows, the JWT format, and the no-args link retrieval. It does not explicitly describe the return value for the token-call path, but it is reasonably complete for an auth tool with minimal schema.

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 an optional string token with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the token type ('<jwt>'), that it should be passed after the user pastes it, and that omitting arguments retrieves the link. It could add error/validation behavior, but it covers the essential parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as an authentication flow for MCP.AI IDE agents: log in, copy the access token, and either configure a permanent header or pass a session token. It includes concrete call modes, which is more specific than the generic name. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect' tool, but the auth context is unmistakable.

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 guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' for a permanent connection versus 'paste it here for a session-only login' with the exact call shape. It clearly explains when to call with a token and when to call with no args, but it does not state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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