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

With annotations already indicating non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful context about permanent vs session-only authentication and the browser login flow. It does not contradict annotations and clarifies expected auth setup behavior, though it stops short of describing internal state changes or failure modes.

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, each serving a purpose: context, permanent-config recommendation, and session-based usage. It is slightly dense but well organized and front-loaded with the tool's identity.

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?

The description covers the main flow, both authentication modes, and what the user/agent should do. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the returned link or success/failure indicators would help, but for a simple one-parameter tool this is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the optional 'token' parameter as a JWT obtained from the browser and clarifying the no-args case. This is meaningful beyond the bare string schema, though it could add more detail on token format or expiration.

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 an authentication mechanism for MCP.AI in IDE agents, using specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token.' It is distinct from siblings like 'connect' and 'show_version' in substance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 actionable guidance on when to use the tool ('call with { token: "<jwt>" }') and when to prefer the config-header approach ('Best: add it to this server's config...'). It also notes the no-args fallback to get the login link, but does not explicitly exclude any sibling alternatives.

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