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

The description discloses side effects: it modifies the server config (for permanent) or establishes a session. It notes the persistence difference ('permanent, non-expiring' vs 'session-only'). It does not explicitly mention idempotency, but the annotation (idempotentHint: true) is consistent—calling multiple times just sets a token. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, dense sentence but remains readable and informative. It covers all necessary information without excessive wordiness, though breaking it into shorter sentences could improve clarity.

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 annotations and schema, the description adds sufficient context about the authentication flow. It omits output details (e.g., success message), but for an auth tool, the primary outcome (token or link) is implied. The description is complete enough for an agent to use 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 single optional parameter 'token' is well explained. The description states that calling without args retrieves the link, and calling with the token (JWT) after pasting completes the login. This fully clarifies the parameter's role and usage.

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: authentication for IDE agents via browser login and token retrieval. It explicitly outlines the two usage modes (permanent config header vs session-only token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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 provides concrete instructions: either add the token to the server config as an Authorization header for a permanent connection, or paste it for a session. It also explains how to call with or without the token parameter, and implies the recommended approach ('Best: add to config').

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