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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it distinguishes session-only login from permanent config-based auth, explains that no-args returns a link, and clarifies the token is a JWT. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could say more about what the tool returns or changes in auth state.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and packed with actionable details. Every clause contributes useful information without redundancy or padding.

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 a single-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage modes, token acquisition, and the permanent-config alternative. It is slightly incomplete regarding return values or error scenarios, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'token' as an optional string with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the token is a JWT copied from the browser and that passing it enables session-only login, while omitting it returns the login link. This sufficiently compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 in IDE agents, explaining how to log in, copy the token, and use it. It distinguishes the tool's function from generic operations by giving concrete actions: get a link, paste a token, or configure a permanent 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 provides strong usage guidance: it explains when to call with no args to get a link and when to call with a pasted token. It also recommends the config-header approach as the best permanent option, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like 'connect'.

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