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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: config-based auth is permanent, pasting a token is session-only, and no args returns a login link. It doesn't describe response details or side effects, but this is adequate for an auth tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then structured with 'Best:' and 'Or:' to separate permanent vs session-only flows. It is slightly dense, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation modes, token semantics, and no-args behavior. It doesn't specify return values or error handling, but those are not critical for this simple 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?

The schema only defines an optional string 'token' with no description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining that the token is a JWT for session-only login, that passing it authenticates the session, and that omitting it returns the login link.

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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with explicit actions: log in via browser, copy token, call with token or no args. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage modes: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... for a permanent, non-expiring connection' versus 'paste it here for a session-only login'. It also tells the agent when to call with a token and when to call with no args to get the link.

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