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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: describes permanent vs. session-only login, how the token is used, and that no-args calls return a link. Annotations include idempotentHint=true, which aligns with repeated calls to obtain a link or update auth, with no contradiction.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, recommended permanent setup, and session-based alternative. Slightly dense but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Covers both primary usage modes (obtaining link, submitting token) and explains persistence differences. Without an output schema, it could mention what happens after token submission (e.g., response format), but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an auth tool.

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?

Schema has a single 'token' string with 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining it is a JWT pasted by the user and showing exact invocation patterns: { token: '<jwt>' } or no args. This gives clear meaning to the parameter beyond 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 states the tool's purpose: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' for MCP.AI IDE agents. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on authentication flows (login link and token submission) rather than connection or marketplace operations.

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?

Provides explicit usage alternatives: adding the token as a header for a permanent connection, pasting it for session-only login, or calling with no args to get the login link. It gives a recommended best approach but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool relative to siblings.

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