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

Discloses the authentication flow (browser login, token copy), the difference between permanent (non-expiring via config) and session-only (pastable token), and the behavior of no-args calls (get a link). This adds value beyond the sparse annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) and gives the agent a clear expectation of side effects.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('log in in the browser'). Every clause serves a function—auth method, token usage, and permanent vs. session options—with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers the browser login flow, both invocation modes (with and without token), and the persistent configuration option. No ambiguities remain about how to use the 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?

While the schema has zero description coverage, the tool description fully explains the token parameter ('<jwt>') and the no-args case. It explicitly states when to provide a token (after user pastes) and when to omit it (to get a link), compensating completely for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific verb (log in) and resource (access token). It also distinguishes between session-only and permanent configuration methods, differentiating it from sibling tools like connect or report_bug.

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 when-to-use guidance: recommends adding the token to config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only, or calling with no args to get the login link. Clearly explains the alternative approaches, making it easy for an agent to choose the right invocation.

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