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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: browser login, token copying, permanent vs session-only behavior, and no-args behavior. It does not mention the response after submitting a token, but it is transparent enough for an auth tool.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then lays out the two login options compactly. It is slightly dense and mixes config advice with invocation instructions, but every sentence earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the login flow, token format, permanent vs session scoping, and no-args behavior. It could add success/failure response details, but an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 string parameter with no description, and the description fully compensates. It explains that token is a JWT, is only needed for session-only login, and that omitting it returns the login link.

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 this tool logs in to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific browser-and-token flow. It distinguishes the auth purpose from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by detailing the two login modes.

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 gives explicit usage paths: permanent connection via config header, session-only login via token argument, and no-args to obtain the login link. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling alternatives like 'connect', so it stops short of full when-to-use/alternatives guidance.

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