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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, explaining permanent vs session-only login and the effect of calling without arguments. It aligns with idempotentHint=true and does not contradict 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 two sentences with key information front-loaded (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and concise practical steps. Slightly dense but efficient without useless filler.

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 an auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential usage modes and configuration. It doesn't mention return values, but that's minor given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description clearly explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT obtained from browser login, and how to use it. This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 as authenticating for MCP.AI, explaining the browser login and token methods. It distinguishes from general connectivity by focusing on auth, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'connect'.

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 gives explicit guidance: recommends configuring a header for permanent access, or pasting a token for session-only login. It also specifies when to pass a token versus calling with no arguments to get a link.

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