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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that calling with no arguments returns a login link, that the token version establishes a session, and notes the permanence of the config-based approach. While it doesn't cover error handling or side effects, for an authentication tool it communicates the core behavior well and doesn't contradict any 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?

The description is compact, conversational, and front-loaded with the tool's role. Every sentence adds value: the context, the permanent config option, the session-only alternative, and the argument syntax. There's no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflows (get link, provide token) and hints at the response (the link). It doesn't discuss failure modes or response format beyond the link, but these are not critical for a simple authentication flow. Slightly more detail on available links or error handling would push it to 5.

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 provides only a bare 'token' string with no description. The description thoroughly compensates by explaining the token's purpose ('<jwt>'), how it's used ('after the user pastes'), and the no-argument alternative to get the link. This fully covers the parameter's meaning and the empty-call behavior.

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 IDE agents via a browser login and access token exchange. It explains the two call patterns (with or without the token parameter) and ties to the 'authenticate' name. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace', though the main function is unambiguous.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: either to obtain a login link or to submit the pasted token. It mentions a permanent config option vs. session-only, which guides when to use which method. However, it doesn't reference any alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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