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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: no-args returns a login link, providing a token creates a session-only login, and config-header usage yields a permanent connection. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations and adds useful persistence context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the target audience and purpose. It is a single dense sentence containing multiple alternatives, which could be clearer with structured formatting, but every clause adds necessary information without padding.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, token semantics, and both usage modes. It does not describe the exact response format beyond 'the link', but that is sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 only defines an optional 'token' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT to paste for session-only login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This gives the agent clear parameter semantics despite the bare schema.

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's purpose: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token exchange. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI), the action (log in, obtain token, authorize), and distinguishes this flow from sibling tools by detailing the exact authentication mechanism.

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 usage guidance: use the server config header for a permanent non-expiring connection, or paste a token for session-only login. It also clarifies when to call with a token versus with no arguments. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'connect' tool, but the decision context is strong.

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