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

The description transparently reveals the side effects: adding to config modifies the server configuration, while pasting a token enables session-only authentication. It explains the distinction between permanent and session-based access, and the idempotentHint annotation is consistent with the described behavior of setting a token.

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, moderately long sentence that packs a lot of information. While it could be split for readability, it avoids redundancy and every clause adds valuable detail about the authentication flow, so it remains efficient despite its length.

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 all key usage cases (permanent vs. session, no-arg vs. token) and implicitly addresses the return value for the no-arg case. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided (e.g., success message), which would be helpful given there is no output schema.

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 sole parameter 'token' is thoroughly explained: it's optional, and the description clarifies that providing it sets the token for the session, while omitting it returns the login link. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definition, making the parameter's role and optionality unambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: authenticating the user to the MCP server for IDE agents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on token-based authentication and the two available methods.

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 explicit usage instructions for both workflows: adding the token to the server's config as a header for a permanent connection, or pasting it inline for a session-only login. It also tells the user to call with no arguments to receive the login link, covering all invocation scenarios.

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