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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: the token can be persisted via config, session-only login is possible, and the no-arg call returns a link. It discloses the interactive browser step and token handling, which is valuable beyond the structured metadata.

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 three dense sentences that pack in the tool's purpose, permanent vs. temporary modes, and parameter behavior. It is arguably slightly longer than needed but contains no filler and front-loads context effectively.

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 single-parameter auth tool with no output schema or param descriptors, this description is thorough: it covers the auth flow, token configuration options, token format, and command variants. Minor omissions exist, such as error cases or what happens on invalid tokens, but the core usages are well covered.

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 gives no description for the token property, so this carries the full burden. The description explains that token is a JWT to be pasted after user login, and that omitting it triggers a link generation flow. This fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents by obtaining an access token through a browser login. It specifies the resource and action (authenticate via token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on auth/login flow.

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 concrete guidance on when to use the tool and in what modes: best configured permanently via an Authorization header, or called with a pasted token for a session-only login, or called with no args to retrieve a link. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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