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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the behavior in terms of permanent vs. session-only login and the link retrieval. It does not explicitly state side effects like token storage, but it implies the difference between the two methods, adding useful context for the agent.

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 moderately concise, capturing the essential information in two sentences without excessive verbosity. It is well-structured, offering both the permanent and session methods clearly, though a slight reduction in redundant phrasing could improve it.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how to use it, including the two usage paths and the effect of the token parameter. It does not explicitly describe the return value when a token is passed, but the context implies it confirms authentication, which is adequate for an agent.

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 lists 'token' as an optional string, but the description thoroughly explains its purpose and usage: passing it after the user pastes, or omitting it to get the link. This provides complete parameter semantics that are absent from the schema, making the tool easy to use correctly.

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 that this tool is for authenticating to the MCP server, describing the login process and token handling. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on the authentication step rather than connection establishment.

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 explicitly explains when and how to use the tool: it provides two options (permanent config via header vs. session-only paste) and specifies that calling with no args returns a link. This gives clear usage guidance and alternatives, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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