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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that the config approach yields a permanent non-expiring connection while pasting the token results in session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. This adds context about the tool's outcomes and side effects. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with these behaviors. The description adds value by clarifying the two distinct modes of operation.

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 moderately long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then providing two clear options. Every sentence contributes useful information (purpose, best practice, session method, and link generation). It could be slightly trimmed but remains efficient for a tool with multiple usage modes.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers how to invoke it and what to expect in terms of outcomes (link or token configuration). It does not describe the return format, but for a simple authentication tool without an output schema, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter: it is optional and can be provided as a JWT after the user pastes it, or omitted to receive a login link. It clarifies the parameter's role and conditions for use, going beyond what the schema (which only defines type) provides.

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: authenticating an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It specifies the verb 'authenticate' and the resource (MCP.AI) accurately. It also differentiates from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on the authentication workflow, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them, its specificity is sufficient.

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 explicit usage instructions: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' for a permanent token, or 'paste it here for a session-only login' with token parameter, or 'call with no args to get the link'. It clearly distinguishes between permanent and session options, providing direct guidance on when to use each method, effectively covering 'when to use' and 'how to use'.

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