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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the behavioral difference between permanent (config header) and session-only (passed token) authentication, and that calling with no arguments returns a link. Annotations already indicate it is idempotent and not destructive; the description adds meaningful context about how authentication state is managed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each sentence conveys necessary operational detail. It avoids filler while covering the permanent config, session token, and no-argument cases.

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?

For a simple auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation paths and prerequisites. It doesn't specify return values or error cases, but the core flow is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the single `token` parameter: it is a JWT that the user pastes, it is optional, and omitting it triggers the link-generation behavior. This compensates completely for 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 identifies the tool's purpose: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in, copying an access token, and either configuring it permanently or passing it for a session. It distinguishes this from other tools by specifying the exact auth flow and the token/link behavior.

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 when-to-use and how-to-use instructions: add a permanent Authorization header via config, or call with { token } for session-only login, or call with no args to receive the login link. It also contrasts the permanent and session-only approaches, which is effective usage guidance.

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