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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds context about permanent (header) vs session-only (paste) modes and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not detail all internal side effects but enough for an agent.

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?

Three sentences, clearly structured with 'Best' and 'Or' alternatives. Slightly verbose with the IDE context but each sentence adds value.

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 core flows: permanent config, session-only token, and obtaining the link. It lacks explicit return format but is largely complete.

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 has one optional 'token' with no description. The description explains the token is a JWT and gives the exact call pattern: { token: '<jwt>' } or no args to obtain the link.

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 authenticates to MCP.AI, with specific verb 'log in' and resource 'MCP.AI', distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect and marketplace.

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 provides concrete usage scenarios: best practice for permanent config vs session-only login, and explains when to pass a token or no args. It does not explicitly compare to 'connect' but gives sufficient context.

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