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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the two auth modes (permanent config header vs session-only token), that calling with no args returns the login link, and that the token is a JWT. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations, and it clarifies the non-destructive, session-oriented behavior.

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 dense but not bloated; every sentence adds useful information about the login flow, permanent vs session-only options, and invocation patterns. It is slightly long and somewhat run-on, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains readable.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, token format, invocation modes, and persistence semantics. It does not explicitly describe the return value beyond 'get the link,' but that is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single optional `token` parameter. It explains that `token` should be a JWT pasted by the user, that providing it performs session-only login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and the action (log in, copy token, authenticate), and it is distinct from sibling tools like connect or show_version.

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 concrete usage guidance: either add the token to the server config as a permanent Authorization header, or paste it into this tool for a session-only login. It also explains when to call with a token versus with no arguments. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool relative to siblings, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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