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

The annotations already mark this as non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: the token can be non-expiring if configured server-side or session-only if pasted, and no-args invocation returns a login link. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat dense and could be tightened, but every sentence contributes operational guidance without being bloated.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important scenarios: permanent config, session-only token, and no-args link retrieval. It could mention the exact return format or error behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with only a bare 'token' string property. The description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT and that the call can be made with or without it, adding meaning well beyond 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's purpose: authenticating an IDE agent by logging in via browser and providing an access token. It distinguishes the two modes (permanent config vs session-only token) and is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the 'connect' sibling tool.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: add the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or paste it for session-only login. It also explains calling with no args to get the login link. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'connect', but the context is clear.

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