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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, with idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains the permanent vs session-only behavior, what the token is used for, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then concise steps. Every sentence adds value: it states who it's for, the primary flow, and then the two usage modes. No fluff or 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 the simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers the intended audience, both authentication methods, how to invoke each, and the outcome (permanent vs session). It fully equips the agent to decide and call 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 has one optional 'token' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates: it explains that 'token' is a JWT/access token, shows how to pass it ('{ token: "<jwt>" }'), and clarifies the no-args case. This is excellent semantics 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 the tool's purpose: authenticate MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in and obtaining an access token. It specifies the verb (log in, copy token) and the resource (MCP.AI), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'connect', but the focus on authentication is clear enough.

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: two modes (permanent header configuration vs session-only token paste) and invocation patterns ('call with no args to get the link'). It explains when to use each mode but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like 'connect'. Still, the context is clear and actionable.

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