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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the permanent config option (non-expiring header) and session-only login when a token is passed, and that calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond the boolean hints (idempotent, not destructive). It does not mention side effects, but annotations cover safety, and it adds meaningful nuance.

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 appropriately sized given the complexity, with a clear structure: context, steps, options. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details. It could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' is a bit vague), but every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and usage well, but it doesn't specify the return value or response format for any of the call variants (e.g., what happens after passing a valid token, or even the link format). Since there is no output schema, this is a gap; the agent may not know what to expect from the tool's response. Otherwise, the context is sufficient for the low complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully explains the `token` parameter: it's a JWT string to be pasted for session-only login, and the tool can be called with no args to get a link. This gives the agent complete understanding of how to use the parameter.

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: authenticating IDE agents by logging in and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on authentication (browser login, token handling) and offering two modes (permanent config vs session-only). The verb 'log in' and resource 'MCP.AI' are specific.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: for IDE agents needing authentication, with a recommended permanent setup via config header and an alternative session-only path. It explains how to call the tool: with a token or no args. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools (like 'connect') as choices, so it's not a full 5.

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