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

With only sparse annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses the two invocation modes (with/without token), the permanent vs session-only distinction, and that no args returns a link. It does not mention edge cases like invalid tokens or whether the token is stored server-side, but the main behavior is transparent.

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 sentences and covers the essential flow, but includes some conversational phrasing ('Best:', 'Or') and could be slightly tighter. Still, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core login action.

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 no output schema, the description tells the user what to expect (a link for no-args, a set session for token input) and covers both configuration strategies. It is sufficient for an auth tool, though it could mention response values or failure behavior more explicitly.

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 defines 'token' with no description, so the tool description adds substantial meaning: the token is a JWT from the browser, it is optional, it enables session-only login, and omitting it triggers link generation. This fully explains the parameter's role and value.

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: logging in via browser, copying an access token, and either persisting it as a header or using it for a session-only token. It conveys the auth flow specifically, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'connect', so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance: use the permanent config-header approach for a non-expiring connection, or call with { token: '<jwt>' } for session-only login, or call with no args to get the link. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like 'connect'.

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