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

With annotations indicating idempotent behavior and no destructive effect, the description adds meaningful context about token persistence ('permanent, non-expiring connection'), session-only limitations, and the browser-link flow. It doesn't disclose potential security caveats like token exposure, but the added connection-lifetime details elevate this above annotation-only transparency.

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 slightly wordy but each chunk of information earns its place: setup context, permanent-auth option, session-auth option, and invocation patterns. It is reasonably front-loaded with the audience ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and overall compact enough for a parameter with multiple usage paths.

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 this tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward auth purpose, the description covers both the setup workflow and the token/paste mechanics. It lacks only a note about what the response contains in each branch, but for such a focused login helper the guidance is sufficiently complete.

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 merely lists a single string 'token' with zero description, so the description carries the full semantic burden. It fully explains the meaning of the parameter as a JWT to paste after login, shows exact usage via { token: "<jwt>" }, and clarifies the no-argument case for retrieving 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 the tool handles authentication/login for the MCP.AI server used by IDE agents, with explicit steps for browser login and token pasting. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on credential acquisition and token setup, though the wording 'MCP.AI' is slightly service-specific and could be clearer.

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 gives strong usage context: it explains the recommended permanent configuration via header vs session-only login, and explicitly when to call with a token vs with no arguments to get a link. It doesn't explicitly compare against alternative tools but does provide clear within-tool decision guidance.

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