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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the permanent vs. session-only login distinction and how the token is supplied. It does not mention security consequences or whether tokens are stored, but it gives enough beyond the annotations for safe use.

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 and front-loaded, opening with the tool's purpose and audience, then giving the two usage paths. It is slightly run-on and could benefit from clearer sentence breaks, but every sentence contributes useful information and there is minimal 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 a simple single-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: how to obtain the token, how to make it permanent, how to use it for a session, and what happens with no arguments. It lacks explicit response/return details, but the description sets expectations well enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only one optional string parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It does: the token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, while omitting the token obtains the login link. This sufficiently explains the parameter's role and value provenance.

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 a specific process: log in, copy the token, and either configure it as a header or pass it as a parameter. This goes well beyond the tool name and distinguishes the authentication flow from sibling tools like connect or marketplace.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use each mode: permanent config header vs. session-only token pass, and explains that calling with no arguments returns the login link. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use authenticate, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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