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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the permanent vs. session-only authentication modes and the effect of providing a token vs. getting a link. It doesn't detail failure modes, but it goes beyond annotation coverage by describing the two distinct call behaviors.

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 pieces of information: the target audience, the permanent configuration method, the session token method, and the no-argument link retrieval. It's front-loaded with 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' to set context, and while dense, every phrase is critical. It's concise without being terse.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to know exactly how to invoke it: with a token for session login, or without to obtain a link. It also covers the recommended permanent setup. There are no gaps in the essential usage information needed for correct invocation.

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 provides only a 'token' string with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is an optional JWT, that it is used for session-only login, and that omitting it returns a login link. This gives the agent complete understanding of the parameter's purpose and optionality.

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 tool's purpose: to authenticate an MCP.AI connection for IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in) and the resource (access token), and distinguishes between the two invocation modes (with token vs no args to get link). While not explicitly comparing to siblings like 'connect', the domain is clearly authentication, so it's unambiguous.

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 guidance on when and how to use the tool: it recommends the permanent config header method, explains the session-only token paste option, and specifies that calling with no arguments yields a login link. It also mentions the context of IDE agents, providing clear usage scenarios without needing to consult siblings.

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