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

Although annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description provides meaningful context by explaining that the token can be non-expiring via config or session-only when passed directly. It does not contradict annotations. The token-handling flow is clearly explained, exceeding what the annotations alone would communicate.

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 that pack in significant detail about both permanent and session-based authentication, implementation guidance for IDE agents, and parameter usage. It is information-dense but stays relevant. Slight deduction for density; the mention of 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' could be seen as extra context, but it is relevant for the agent audience.

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 the tool's relative simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description does a good job covering the main user flow, configuration integration, and session fallback. It doesn't mention error handling or token security specifics, but for this scope the description is near-complete. An output schema would be a bonus but isn't necessary for this tool's purpose.

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 specifies a string `token` with no description, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. The description does explain that `token` is the '<jwt>' to paste, which adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on expected format or edge cases; baseline 3 is appropriate given the low schema 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 explicitly states the tool's action: log in via browser and copy the access token, with a clear instruction as to what argument to pass. It also clearly positions itself among sibling tools like `connect` and `marketplace`, distinguishing its purpose as authentication.

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 clear when-to-use guidance by explaining both configuration-based authorization (via config header) and session-based login (passing the token), plus the option to call with no args. It specifically tells agents to call with {token: '<jwt>'} after the user pastes, giving an explicit alternative path.

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