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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: describes permanent vs session modes, the need to log in via browser, and that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) are consistent with this; the description enriches without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences cover a multi-step process efficiently. The first fronts the action, the second details the two modes. While somewhat dense, every clause adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow: how to obtain the token, how to use it (permanent vs session), and how to initiate login (with or without token). It lacks explicit response descriptions but remains complete for the core interaction.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'token' parameter is a JWT for session login and that it is optional (used only when pasting). This clarifies both the format and conditional usage beyond the bare 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 with MCP.AI for IDE agents. It explains the login process (browser, token capture) and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on the specific authentication workflow with this server.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only login. It also clarifies two calling conventions: with a token argument or with no arguments to retrieve a link.

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