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

The description reveals behavioral traits: no-args call returns a link, token call authenticates for the session, and the permanent config option. It adds context beyond annotations like idempotentHint=true by showing the two distinct invocation modes and their outcomes.

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 with the main purpose. It packs two usage modes into two sentences, each earning its place, though slightly dense due to the multiple clauses.

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 auth tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, including permanent vs session modes and how to invoke. It doesn't detail the exact return format, but the link and token handling are sufficiently explained.

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 only lists 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT pasted by the user, and clarifies it's optional since calling with no args is allowed.

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 explains the tool's purpose: authenticate by obtaining a browser login link or accepting a token. It uses specific verbs and provides concrete workflow steps, distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect by focusing on token-based auth for IDE agents.

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 gives clear usage guidance: either add a permanent header to config or pass a token for session-only login, and explains calling with no args to get the link. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context makes when to use each mode clear.

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