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

The description discloses key behaviors: it distinguishes between permanent (non-expiring) and session-only connections, implying side effects related to session persistence. It does not explicitly mention error cases or invalid tokens, but it provides sufficient transparency for common use. The annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, which aligns with the described 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 concise yet informative, consisting of two sentences that logically flow from the login process to the different authentication methods. It avoids unnecessary details while covering all essential usage aspects.

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 the single optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains how to use the tool, what the token represents, and the outcomes of different calls (link vs. authenticated session). It covers all necessary information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 a `token` string, but the description adds crucial semantic meaning: it explains that the token is a JWT and that it is optional (no args to get link). This significantly enhances understanding of the parameter beyond the basic type information.

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: authentication. It explains that the user logs in, copies the access token, and then uses it to authenticate either by adding it to config or pasting it. The verb 'authenticate' and the resource (access token) are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on credential management.

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 usage instructions: how to obtain the token (log in, copy), and two ways to use it (add to config for permanent connection or paste for session-only). It also mentions that calling with no args returns a link, clarifying the optional parameter behavior. This is clear and actionable.

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