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

Annotations already mark idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds that config-header auth is permanent/non-expiring while pasted-token auth is session-only, and that no-args returns a login link. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences pack purpose, two auth strategies, and invocation patterns without fluff. The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and remains highly scannable.

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 one-optional-param auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the flow, permanence trade-off, and no-args behavior. A minor gap is not describing the success response when a token is provided or how this relates to the sibling 'connect' 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?

The schema only defines an optional string token with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates by explaining the token is a JWT to paste and that omitting it returns the login link.

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 authenticates the MCP.AI server for IDE agents, with a browser-login/token-copy flow. It distinguishes two auth modes but doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'connect'.

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?

Explicitly recommends a permanent config-header approach versus a session-only pasted token, and specifies exact call patterns: call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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