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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as permanent vs. session-only login modes and the fact that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds context without contradiction, explaining the two operational modes.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then provides actionable instructions. No fluff exists, though it could be slightly restructured into shorter sentences for easier scanning.

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 an authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it in three different ways, and the best practice. It lacks explicit mention of possible side effects or return formats, but these are implicitly covered by the annotations and the tool's simple nature.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description fully compensates by explaining that the 'token' parameter expects a JWT string for session login, and that omitting the parameter yields a login link. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 the user to the MCP server via browser login and token retrieval. It specifically mentions being for IDE agents, which differentiates from general-purpose tools, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like '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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: adding a header via config for permanent access, pasting a token for session-only access, or calling with no arguments to get a login link. It even recommends the best practice (config header). However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternative sibling tools.

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