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

It discloses important behavioral details: no-args returns a link, token-based calls create a session login, and config-header setup creates a permanent connection. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description adds meaningful context without contradicting them.

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 dense with useful information but somewhat run-on and not broken into clear sentences. Still, every part contributes to understanding the auth flow, and it front-loads the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers both invocation modes, explains the permanent vs session distinction, and gives the user/browser workflow. No essential behavior 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?

The schema has a single optional 'token' parameter with no description and 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT that the user pastes, that it is optional, and that omitting it returns a login link instead.

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 identifies the tool as an authentication/login flow for MCP.AI for IDE agents, describing browser login, token retrieval, and passing the token for session login. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like marketplace or report_bug, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named 'connect' tool.

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 guidance on when to use each approach: adding the token to server config for a permanent non-expiring connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It also clarifies the no-args call returns a login link, making invocation conditions very clear.

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