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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains that a token can be stored permanently in config or used for a session-only login, and that calling with no arguments returns a link. It doesn't mention side effects like state changes, but the idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false are consistent; no contradiction. The description adds clarity about the two modes of operation.

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 two sentences but quite detailed, covering multiple use cases without unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then explains the two ways to authenticate. While not extremely terse, every sentence contributes meaningful context, and the structure is logical.

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 tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary aspects: how to use it, when to use each mode, and the meaning of the token. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in all scenarios without additional information.

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 has zero description coverage for the single 'token' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining exactly what the token is (a JWT) and when to provide it ('after the user pastes') versus omitting it ('with no args to get the link'). This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and usage.

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 for IDE agents by logging in and obtaining an access token. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and the resource (MCP.AI). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'connect', so it lacks explicit differentiation, though the purpose is still clear.

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 guidelines: it explains the two main workflows (permanent connection via config header vs. session-only via pasted token) and exactly how to invoke the tool (with or without the token argument). It gives clear conditions for each use case and even recommends the best practice, satisfying the when-to-use requirement.

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