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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:true, destructiveHint:false, but the description adds essential behavioral context: it clarifies that the tool is non-destructive and idempotent (can be called multiple times to get the link), and that it does not mutate state permanently unless a token is pasted, which is a session-only side effect. It also explains the permanent vs. session distinction, which the annotations do not capture.

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 compact for the complexity it covers, with a clear flow: it starts with the target audience, then the recommended permanent method, then the session-only fallback. Each sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, no output schema, and the annotations are sparse, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the two invocation modes, the authentication flow, and the configuration alternative. This is more than sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without additional context.

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 only one optional 'token' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains that token is a JWT string the user pastes from the browser, and that omitting it triggers a link generation. This adds semantic meaning beyond the mere property name, fully compensating for the schema's lack of description.

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's purpose as the authentication entry point for IDE agents, spelling out the verb 'log in' and the resource 'access token'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by explicitly targeting IDE agents and describing the login flow, which is unique among the sibling list.

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 explicit when-to-use and how-to-use guidance: it explains the recommended permanent configuration via a header, versus the session-only paste flow. It also instructs the agent on when to call with no args (to get the link) versus with a token, which is critical for correct invocation.

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