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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains that the token can be stored permanently via config (non-expiring) or used temporarily for a session, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not describe the exact response format or side effects, but given the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), the description adds meaningful context without contradicting them.

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 informative but somewhat run-on and fragmented (e.g., the first sentence is a fragment). It could be more concise and better structured, but every sentence does convey needed information, so it is not excessively verbose.

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 simple authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: how to log in, the two modes (permanent vs session), and the parameter semantics. It does not explain return values, but the lack of an output schema makes that less important. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description. The description compensates by clarifying that the token is a JWT copied from the browser, and that the parameter is only needed when doing a session-only login. It also explains the no-args behavior to get a link, which resolves the optionality.

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: authenticating to the MCP.AI server for IDE agents. It explains the login process (log in in the browser, copy token) and distinguishes two methods (config header vs session token). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'connect', leaving slight ambiguity about when to prefer one over the other.

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 scenarios: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or passing it as a parameter for session-only login, or calling with no args to get a login link. This is clear context, though it does not mention any 'when not to use' cases or alternatives beyond the tool itself.

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