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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's non-destructive nature. The description adds context about the authentication flow (browser login, token copy) and the two modes, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like token expiration or security considerations, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds value. It covers the main use case, the two modes, and the invocation pattern in a compact form. No fluff.

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 complete enough. It explains the authentication flow, the two modes, and how to invoke. It could mention what the response looks like, but since there's no output schema, it's not strictly required. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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. The tool description explains that the token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that calling with no args returns the link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which is otherwise bare. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.

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: authenticate the MCP server for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the authentication flow and the two modes (permanent config vs session-only).

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 guidance on when to use this tool: when the user needs to authenticate the server. It explains the two usage scenarios (adding token to config for permanent connection, or pasting token for session-only) and even instructs to call with no args to get the link. This is clear and actionable.

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