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

The description discloses behavioral traits: it explains the token expiration (permanent vs. session-only), the requirement to log in via browser, and that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, so the description adds context about the login flow and token handling, going beyond the annotations.

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 sentence but packed with essential information: the link, the token, the config option, and the session-only option. It front-loads the most critical info (log in browser, copy token) and provides the optional call syntax. It is slightly dense but every part earns its place.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it explains the authentication flow, both usage modes (permanent and session), and the exact call syntax. However, it could benefit from clarifying what the link looks like or what the response is, but those are minor gaps.

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 parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining exactly how to use the 'token' parameter: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes' and that no args gets the login link. This fully covers the parameter's meaning and usage.

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 an MCP server for IDE agents by logging in and obtaining an access token. It specifies the resource (this server's config or session-only login) and the action (authenticate), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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 guidance: it gives two distinct usage scenarios (permanent config-based login vs. session-only paste), explains the best approach, and mentions the alternative of pasting the token. It also suggests the context (IDE agents like Cursor) and provides step-by-step actions (log in browser, copy token, add to config).

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