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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-read-only. The description adds key behavioral context: the token can be stored permanently in config, session-only login via pasting, and no-args behavior returns the link. It does not describe errors or post-auth state changes, but for this simple tool the additional detail is meaningful.

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, front-loaded with the target context (MCP.AI, IDE agents). Each sentence earns its place: one describes the flow, one gives the recommended permanent setup, one gives the session-only alternative. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: how to initiate, configure permanently, and use session-only. It could mention return values or error cases, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate and not a significant gap.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains the token parameter is a JWT, how to supply it ({ token: "<jwt>" }), and that omitting it is valid to retrieve the login link. This gives complete meaning to the optional parameter.

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 for IDE agents, with a specific process (log in via browser, copy token, call with token or no args). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by explicitly naming the MCP.AI service and the server's config header.

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?

Provides explicit usage modes: adding the token to config for permanent connection vs. pasting for session-only, and calling with no args to get the login link. While it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, the instructions are direct and unambiguous for the intended auth flow.

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