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

Adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: how login occurs, token source, permanent vs session-only persistence, and no-arg link return. Does not detail response/error cases, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and actionable instructions. The only slight inefficiency is embedding a manual server-config recommendation alongside tool-call semantics, but it earns its place by explaining the permanent-auth alternative.

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 single-optional-param auth tool with no output schema, the description covers login flow, token format, invocation modes, and what no-args returns. It omits explicit return value for token calls and error behavior, but is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates: token is explained as a JWT pasted from the browser, optional, and the no-args behavior is explicitly contrasted with token-bearing calls.

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?

Description clearly states the tool authenticates to MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and access token. It specifies the exact resource and action, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'connect' tool.

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 when/how: use with no args to get a login link, or with a token after the user pastes it; recommends config header for permanent auth vs session-only paste. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, but the context is unambiguous.

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