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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining the two modes (permanent via config vs. session-only via pasted token) and the 'no args returns a link' behavior. It does not detail failure states or response shapes, but the key behavioral aspects are disclosed.

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 but information-dense, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and structured with 'Best:' and 'Or' to clearly separate the two usage paths. Every sentence adds actionable value without fluff.

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 an authentication tool with minimal schema and no output schema, the description covers the main flow (get link, paste token), the session vs. permanent distinction, and the target audience (IDE agents). It lacks explicit return details for the token-submission path but is otherwise sufficiently complete.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining the single `token` parameter (a JWT pasted by the user) and the optional no-args form. This is all an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 function: authenticating to MCP.AI via a browser login, either by pasting a token for session-only access or by retrieving a login link. The verb 'log in' and the specific resource (MCP.AI) make it unambiguous and distinct from generic sibling names like 'connect'.

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: the recommended permanent approach is adding the token to the server config as a header, while this tool is for session-only login or obtaining the login link. It also specifies exactly when to call with a token (`{ token: "<jwt>" }`) versus with no args.

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