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

The description discloses key behaviors: it opens a browser for login, returns a link when called with no args, and accepts a token for session-only login. It also mentions the token is a JWT. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description (no destructive actions, repeated calls are safe). The description adds context about the permanent vs session-only distinction, which is beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention any side effects like rate limits or auth requirements for the tool itself.

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 colon to separate the main purpose from usage details. The two sentences are information-dense but not overly long. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for the two modes), but it's efficient and readable.

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 two usage modes, the recommended permanent setup, and the session-only alternative. It doesn't explain what happens after successful authentication (e.g., what the tool returns), but that's not critical for a simple auth tool. The sibling tools are diverse, and this description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 description explains that 'token' is a JWT to be pasted for session-only login, and that calling with no args returns the login link. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates for the parameter's purpose and usage.

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 an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes between two modes (permanent config vs session-only) and mentions the target audience (MCP.AI for IDE agents). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', which might also relate to authentication, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 guidance: it explains when to use the tool (to log in and get a token), how to use it (with or without a token argument), and recommends the best practice (adding to config for permanent connection). It also implies when not to use it (if you already have a token, you can just add it to config). 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.