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

Annotations show idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and description aligns: it mentions non-expiring connection, session-only login, and that calling with no args gives link. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide (e.g., no mention of side effects like browser redirects or timeout 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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and quickly explains usage options. It includes necessary details about token and link, but could be more concise by separating sentences; still, it earns its length.

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's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: how to authenticate, two methods, and the recommendation for persistent vs session. It is complete enough for an IDE agent to decide and invoke, though it could mention potential errors or prerequisite (browser login step is implied).

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?

Schema has only one optional 'token' parameter with no description coverage (0%). The description explains the token's usage ('paste it here' or 'with no args'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it doesn't explain the token format (JWT mentioned in one phrase) or other potential parameters, so it partially compensates but not fully.

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 purpose: authenticating via login in browser and copying an access token. It specifies the tool accepts a token or returns a link, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'show_version' which likely have different purposes.

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 explicit usage instructions: recommends adding token to config for permanent connection, or pasting token for session-only login. It explains when to use this tool (first-time auth) vs alternatives implicitly, but lacks explicit exclusions or when not to use.

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