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

The description reveals that no-args returns a login link, and that pasting a token creates a session-only login, while header config yields permanent connection. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate idempotent and non-read-only). It does not describe side effects like invalidating existing sessions, but it adds meaningful context.

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?

Three sentences pack the essential information, but the structure is a bit run-on with 'Best:' and 'Or'. Still, every part is useful.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should state return values. It mentions that no-args returns a link, but doesn't explain what happens on successful token submission. It also lacks error scenarios. This is a gap for a 1-param auth tool.

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 only defines an optional string token with no description. The description explains that the token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it triggers link generation. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% coverage.

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 is for authentication, explaining the browser login process and token handling. It specifies a specific audience (IDE agents) and differentiates between two invocation modes, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'connect'.

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?

Provides explicit instructions for two usage paths: configuring a permanent header vs pasting a token for session-only login. It also states that calling with no args returns a link, guiding when to use which. However, it doesn't address when to use this tool over the sibling 'connect'.

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