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

While the annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context beyond these fields. It explains the two distinct login paths (config-based vs. session-only), the security implication of 'non-expiring' tokens, and the behavior of calling with no arguments (get link) versus with a token (complete login). It conveys the idempotent nature by implying repeat calls are safe.

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 a single 61-word run-on sentence that combines context, setup instructions, and usage examples. While it front-loads the core context ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and gives clear options, the lack of paragraph breaks or stronger structure makes it dense. It could be split into two or three cleaner sentences without losing meaning.

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 tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers the essential user flows: getting the login link and completing login with a pasted token. It explains both authentication methods (config vs. session) and the implications of each. It could potentially mention error cases or what happens on invalid tokens, but for the low complexity of this tool, it is sufficiently 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the token parameter. It states: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link,' correctly explaining the token's purpose and implying it is optional. While it explains what the token does, it could be slightly clearer about the JWT format details, but overall the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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 explains the authentication purpose with a specific flow: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by describing a specific browser-based login mechanism for MCP.AI, and the 'no args to get the link' phrasing clarifies the tool's primary entry point. However, 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' is a somewhat awkward and ambiguous opening that doesn't immediately state the action.

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 clear usage direction: 'Best: add it to this server's config... for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login.' This explicitly compares the two authentication methods and recommends one over the other. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use the tool or reference alternatives like the connect sibling.

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