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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the permanent-vs-session distinction, the need to paste a JWT, and the no-args behavior of returning a link. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations, though it could more explicitly disclose state changes when a token is supplied.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core action, with additional detail about the recommended permanent header configuration and the session-only fallback. Each sentence contributes useful operational information, though the lead-in 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is slightly verbose.

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?

Given the simple input schema, no output schema, and one optional parameter, the description gives enough operational context to invoke the tool: how to get the link, how to pass a token, and how to configure a permanent connection. It lacks explicit return-value details for the token-provided call, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for the single 'token' parameter. It explains that token is a JWT pasted from the browser and that omitting it will trigger the login-link flow. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it does not detail the token's exact format or expected expiry behavior.

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's purpose: authenticating IDE agents to the MCP server by logging in through the browser and obtaining an access token. It is specific about the resource (this server's auth) and the action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool '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?

It provides explicit usage alternatives: permanent configuration via header vs. session-only login by pasting a token, and explains that calling with no args returns the login link. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the two-path guidance is strong enough to guide agent decision-making.

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