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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds context by explaining the no-args behavior returns a link and the token is a JWT. It aligns with annotations and adds useful detail about the two authentication modes, though it doesn't enumerate 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 somewhat verbose but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then presenting the recommended and alternative methods. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Covers both authentication paths and indicates the output for the no-args case (link). While it doesn't detail success/failure responses for the token path, it is sufficient for a simple auth tool with no output schema.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining the optional 'token' parameter: pass a JWT after the user pastes it, or omit to receive the login link. This makes the parameter's meaning and usage crystal clear.

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: to authenticate IDE agents with MCP.AI via browser login and token. It specifically explains the login flow and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication rather than connectivity or other utilities.

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 on when and how to use: either add a permanent header to the config or call with a token for session-only login, and call with no args to get the login link. This gives clear decision guidance for the agent.

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