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

The description discloses that the tool initiates a browser login flow and returns a link when called with no args, and that it can accept a token for session-only login. It also mentions the permanent config option. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description. The description adds context about the browser interaction and token handling, though it doesn't detail what happens after token submission (e.g., validation, error handling).

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It uses a single paragraph with clear instructions, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the two usage modes). However, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 param, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main use cases and provides actionable steps. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, token expiration, or what the response looks like, which could be useful for an agent. But overall, it's adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT to be pasted for session-only login, and that calling without args returns a link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about the token format and behavior.

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 the user for MCP.AI IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, while siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' serve different functions.

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: it explains when to use the tool (to log in and get a token), and offers two methods—permanent via config header or session-only by pasting the token. It also clarifies when to call with no args (to get the link) versus with a token (after user pastes). This is clear guidance on when and how to use it.

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