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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the permanent vs. session-only login distinction, the browser flow, and the no-args behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, and the idempotentHint is consistent with a token-setting operation.

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 core purpose, then details the two usage modes. It is slightly dense and run-on, but every clause contributes useful information without significant waste.

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 simple schema, annotations, and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential context: how to authenticate, the two login modes, and the no-args behavior. It does not describe the return value for a token submission, but this is a minor gap for an auth tool.

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 string 'token', but the description explains that it is a JWT access token pasted by the user, and that omitting it returns the login link. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the raw 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 the tool's purpose: authenticating an IDE agent by logging in via browser and providing an access token. It is specific about the action and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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?

The description provides concrete usage guidance: either configure a permanent Authorization header or pass a token for session-only login, and call with no args to get the login link. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the in-tool usage modes are clearly explained.

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