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

The description mentions the two authentication modes but does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether it stores the token, if it makes network calls, or if calling with no args returns a unique link). The idempotentHint annotation is not reinforced or contradicted, but the description lacks detail about state changes or persistence.

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 bit lengthy but well-organized into two main options (permanent vs. session-based) with clear wording. The structure aids readability without excessive verbosity.

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?

Covers the essential steps for authentication, including the two methods and the token's role. It does not explicitly state the output format, but since no output schema is provided, this is acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand how to perform authentication.

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 single parameter 'token' is explained as a JWT obtained from the login process, and its optionality is clarified by the statement that calling with no args retrieves a link. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definition.

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: authenticating with MCP.AI for IDE agents. It explains the login process and distinguishes between permanent and session-based authentication, making the intent specific and not a tautology.

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 explicit usage instructions: how to obtain the token, how to use it (via config header or by passing token directly), and the behavior when called with no arguments (retrieve the login link). This gives clear guidance on when to use each approach.

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