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

Annotations already declare idempotence and non-destructiveness; the description adds browser login mechanics, JWT handling, and persistent vs session behavior. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but adds meaningful context beyond 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; each clause covers a distinct aspect: browser flow, permanent config, and session usage. The core action is front-loaded.

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 a simple auth tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation modes and the expected user flow. It lacks explicit success/failure details, but is sufficient for the tool's low 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the optional token parameter as a JWT pasted from the browser for session login, and the no-args alternative for retrieving the link. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 an MCP.AI authentication flow for IDE agents, specifying browser login, access token retrieval, and both permanent and session-only configuration. This makes it distinct from siblings 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?

It explicitly contrasts the recommended permanent setup via config header with the session-only paste flow, and tells the agent exactly when to call with a token vs no args. This provides actionable decision guidance.

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