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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as the two modes (permanent vs session-only) and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and adds practical context about the effects of different calls.

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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, best practice, and alternative. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the two invocation modes and the expected behavior. It does not describe the returned link's format, but that is not critical for usage.

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 has a single optional 'token' parameter with no description. The description compensates by explaining that providing a token triggers a session login, and omitting it generates a link. This adds meaning beyond the schema's empty description.

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 by logging in and obtaining an access token. It specifies the action (log in) and the resource (the server), but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'connect' tool, making it slightly less than perfect.

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 explicit usage scenarios: adding the token to config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for a session-only login, and calling with no args to get the link. It does not mention when to use this over the sibling 'connect', but gives clear context for its own usage.

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