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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive but read/write capability. The description adds behavioral context by revealing that the tool can modify server config (adding Authorization header) and that tokens can be permanent or session-based. It doesn't fully detail side effects but provides useful context.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds value, covering purpose, permanent setup, and session setup. It is front-loaded with the tool's name and context, and avoids fluff, though it could be tightened.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the two authentication flows, includes a call example, and addresses the IDE agent use case. No critical information is missing.

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%, so description carries the burden. It explains the token parameter's role ('{token: "<jwt>"}') and the alternative of no args to get a link, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be more explicit about token format, but enough is provided.

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 users to the MCP server via browser login and token. It specifies the resource (access token, server config) and the context (IDE agents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace.

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 instructions for both permanent (config header) and session-only (token paste) usage, and explains the no-argument call for retrieving the login link. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., when already authenticated) and offers clear alternatives.

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