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

The description adds behavior beyond annotations: it contrasts permanent vs session-only login, explains the browser login prerequisite, and describes the effect of passing or omitting the token. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

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 dense and front-loaded, but the opening 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is unnecessary context. Otherwise, every clause carries essential information, making it appropriately sized.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes, the user interaction needed (browser login), and the durability of each method. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional information.

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 only parameter 'token' is fully explained: it is an optional JWT to paste for session login, and omitting it returns the login link. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare string type in 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 authenticates the agent to the server, with specific actions: log in via browser, copy token, and use it either via config header or session token. It distinguishes the two methods and the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: config header is best for permanent non-expiring connection, while pasting the token is for session-only login. It also explains when to call with no args (to get link) versus with token, giving clear decision criteria.

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