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

The description discloses behavior: it initiates a browser login, returns a link, accepts a token, and notes the difference between permanent (config) and session-only (paste) authentications. It also mentions the token type (JWT). Annotations declare non-read-only but do not require more disclosure. The description adds valuable context about the two auth modes and the need for a user to paste the token, with no contradictions.

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 concise but includes necessary details about the two modes and the token format. It's not verbose, though it could be slightly more structured, but it's clear and to the point.

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 authentication tool, it explains the workflow (login, get token, use it) and the two methods. It lacks information about error handling or what the response looks like, but the lack of output schema may make that acceptable. Overall, it's fairly complete for its purpose.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the only parameter `token`: it expects a JWT string when the user pastes it, and its absence triggers a link. This carries the full burden of parameter semantics, making the tool invocable correctly.

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: to authenticate a user for MCP.AI, providing two methods (browser login with token config or session token) and a no-args mode to get the link. It uses a specific verb 'log in' and identifies the resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication.

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 guidance on when to use each mode: adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, pasting a token for session-only, or calling with no args to get the login link. This clearly communicates usage contexts and alternatives, even though it doesn't mention when not to use the tool.

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