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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are supplemented by the description, which clarifies the authentication flow and side effects like creating a permanent config header vs. session-only token. The description adds transparency about the token's lifespan (non-expiring vs. session-only) and the fact that calling with no args returns a login link, which is beyond what the annotations reveal.

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, somewhat run-on block of text with colons and 'Best:' and 'Or' to separate ideas, which could be better structured with line breaks or bullets for scanability. Every piece of information is relevant, but the flow is a bit tangled, making it less concise than it could be.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main usage patterns (config header, token paste, no-arg) and enough context to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the response format, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity keep this from being a critical gap.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly explains the `token` parameter as a JWT to paste, and clarifies that calling with no arguments retrieves a login link. This directly adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which only states 'string'), effectively covering the parameter's semantics in prose.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in, copying an access token, and making it available via a config header or session token. It includes a specific flow (browser login, copy token) and differentiates between permanent (config header) and session-only (paste token) usage, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'report_bug'.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool (authentication) and provides instructions for the recommended permanent config method versus a session-only approach, including when to call with a token and when to call with no arguments. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'connect' or mention alternative tools to consider, leaving a small gap in guidance.

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