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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds context about the token being non-expiring for config-based auth and session-only for pasted tokens, which is useful behavioral info beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It packs a lot of information into two sentences, but the second sentence is a bit dense with multiple clauses. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the two auth methods, the token parameter, and the no-args behavior. It could mention what the response looks like, but that's minor given the lack of output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste for session-only login, and clarifies that calling with no args returns the link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: authenticate to MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, while siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' serve different functions.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains two methods (permanent config header vs. session-only token), when to use each (permanent vs. session), and how to call the tool (with token or no args). It also mentions the alternative of adding the token to config, which is a clear alternative to using this tool.

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