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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the behavioral distinction between permanent and session-only authentication, noting that the config header creates a non-expiring connection. It also clarifies that calling with no args returns a link. It does not mention potential side effects or error cases, but the annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 informative but slightly run-on, using 'Best:' and 'Or' to structure alternatives. All sentences are purposeful, and it is not overly long for the two distinct usage modes it explains.

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 the authentication workflow well, including both modes and the no-args behavior. It lacks explicit details on return values or error handling, but these are inferable from the context and the tool's simplicity.

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 provides only 'token' as a string with zero description. The description compensates fully by defining token as a JWT for session-only login and clarifying that omitting it triggers a link response. This adds essential meaning beyond 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 states the tool's purpose: to authenticate IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It explicitly describes the two authentication modes and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on the login/token process.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: for a permanent connection, add the token as a config header; for a session-only login, pass a JWT in the token parameter; or call with no args to receive the login link. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives among siblings.

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