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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: permanent non-expiring connection via config header vs session-only login via pasted token, and that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent with this, but more detail on session lifespan or return value would be valuable.

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 organized with a clear purpose statement and then two method options, each on separate clauses. It's slightly verbose with the 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' prefix and wordy phrasing, but every sentence adds necessary guidance.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers essential usage scenarios, token handling, and link generation. Missing details like exact return values or error conditions, but adequate for an authentication tool with good annotations.

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 provides no description for 'token' (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" }' explains the token's meaning and format, and states it's optional (no args case). This gives complete semantic guidance.

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: logging in to MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser and access token. It uses a specific verb ('log in') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication flow.

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 guidance on when to use each method: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent connection, or 'paste it here for a session-only login'. Also explains calling with no args to get the link, giving clear usage context and alternatives.

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