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

The description explains behavior beyond annotations: it reveals that calling with no args returns a link for browser login, and that tokens are non-expiring if configured, but session-only if pasted. Annotations only say idempotent=true, which aligns with the description (no side effects). It does not contradict annotations and adds useful context about the permanence of the connection.

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 and informative, covering the main use cases in a single paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and then gives implementation details. It's slightly verbose with the colon in 'Best: add it...' but still efficient. No fluff.

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 that the tool is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains what happens when calling with or without arguments and the alternative permanent configuration. It does not explicitly state what the returned link looks like, but that may not be necessary for an agent.

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 description explains the token parameter meaning: it is a JWT to be passed after the user pastes it, enabling a session-only login. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only declares the property name and type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the param's role.

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: it authenticates the IDE agent to the MCP server, either by generating a login link or by accepting a token. It specifies the resource (authentication for the server) and the action (log in). It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace', though not explicitly contrasting them.

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 scenarios: when to call with no args (to get the login link) and when to call with a token (session-only login). It also advises a better alternative: adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection. This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool and what to do.

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