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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it explains that no-args returns a login link, token-based calls create a session-only login, and config headers yield a permanent non-expiring connection. This goes beyond the boolean hints by describing the auth flow and token lifecycle, though it doesn't detail return formats or error behavior.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the audience and purpose, then follows with two concrete usage paths. Every phrase adds value: audience, auth flow, permanent vs session modes, and parameter usage. It is dense but readable.

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 a single optional parameter, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers all essential behavior: how to initiate login, how to pass a token, and the distinction between permanent configuration and session-only token usage. It is complete for an authentication tool of this 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?

The schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description. The description fully compensates: it identifies the token as a JWT, explains it must be pasted by the user, and contrasts it with the no-args case that returns a link. This gives complete semantic meaning to the optional token parameter and its omission.

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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and using an access token. It distinguishes this from a generic 'connect' by specifying the exact authentication flow and two modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token). The verbs 'log in', 'copy the access token', and 'call with { token }' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: permanent connections should be set via config header, session-only logins should use the token argument, and calling with no args retrieves the login link. It advises the 'best' approach and implicitly tells the agent when NOT to rely on the tool for permanent auth. No exclusions against sibling tools are needed because the purpose is unique.

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