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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true.ReadOnlyHint=false, and the description explains the permanent vs session-only side effects, which adds behavioral context. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but the idempotent hint is consistent with the session login scenario. No contradiction found.

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 block but well-organized: first states the purpose, then presents the two options (permanent config vs session token) with clear call patterns. It's a bit dense with links and code but not overly long. No wasted sentences.

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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the two usage modes and what happens when called with no arguments (returns a link). It doesn't detail the exact response structure but enough for typical IDE agent usage. It could mention error cases, but that's not essential.

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 has only 'token' with no description, so the description adds significant meaning: it specifies the format as JWT, shows example call syntax `{ token: "<jwt>" }`, and explains that omitting the arg yields a link. This fully compensates for the sparse 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 states this tool authenticates for MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a concise overview of the two login modes (via config header or via pasted token). It also explains the no-args behavior for retrieving the auth link. The purpose is immediately understandable, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect'.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: adding token to server config for a permanent connection, or passing token as argument for session-only login, or calling with no args to get the link. It also mentions the user flow (paste token). It doesn't specify when to choose this over alternative auth tools, but the two modes are well-explained.

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