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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context about token persistence (permanent via config header vs session-only via paste) and explains that calling with no args yields a browser login link. It does not mention invalid-token behavior or response details, but it adds value beyond annotations.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and user workflow. Every clause adds info: audience, browser login, token source, permanent vs session persistence, and call forms.

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 one-parameter optional-token tool, the description covers the main invocation modes and user workflow well. The main gap is the lack of any mention of the response/return value or failure cases, though no output schema exists to fill that 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that `token` is an optional JWT used for session-only login and that omitting it triggers the login-link flow. This gives the agent clear functional meaning for the single 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 identifies the tool as the MCP.AI authentication entry point for IDE agents, with a specific flow: log in via browser, copy token, then use it. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like `show_version` or `report_bug`, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the `connect` sibling.

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 invocation patterns: call with `{ token: "<jwt>" }` to paste a session token, or call with no args to get a login link. It also contrasts a permanent config-header approach with a session-only token approach, providing practical usage context.

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