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

It discloses relevant behavior beyond the annotations: calling with no args produces a login link, calling with a token activates a session, and the described permanent mode uses a config header. It aligns with the idempotent and non-destructive hints, adding meaningful workflow 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 appropriately concise and covers all essential information in three sentences. The structure is a bit dense and slightly overlong in the last sentence, but no words are wasted.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter) and the description covers the two call modes and expected inputs. It does not explain what happens after successful authentication via the token path, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use it.

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 only parameter `token` is explicitly described as the pasted JWT, with an example call and clear statement that omitting it returns the login link. This fully compensates for the lack of parameter description in the 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 as an authentication helper for MCP.AI in IDE agents, explaining it logs in via browser/copy-token or by providing a JWT. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI) and the scope (IDE agents such as Cursor), and the flow is distinct from siblings 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 explains when to use the tool and the main alternative: adding an Authorization header to the server config for persistent access versus pasting a token for session-only. It gives clear contexts but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like connect.

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