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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the two authentication modes (permanent via config header vs session-only via token), the need for browser login, and the behavior when calling with no args. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is organized into two clear options (permanent vs session-only), though it includes some informal phrasing and a slightly convoluted sentence structure that could be tightened without losing meaning.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main workflows, including prerequisites (browser login) and both usage modes. It stops short of discussing error cases or the exact response format, but those are less critical for an authentication 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 input schema has a single 'token' property with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that token expects a JWT string, when to pass it (after user pastes it), and when to omit it (to get the login link). This is essential meaning beyond 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 states the tool's purpose: to authenticate IDE agents to the MCP.AI server. It provides a specific verb (log in/authenticate) and resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents), and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by describing the login process and access token handling.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: add the token to the server's config for a permanent connection, or paste it for a session-only login. It also clarifies calling with no args to get the link. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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