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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, so description doesn't need to restate that. It does add context about permanent vs session-only, but doesn't disclose any side effects (e.g., config file modification) or what happens on failure. It's adequate but not detailed beyond 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?

Two sentences, mostly front-loaded with the tool's role Error number. The second sentence is long but packed with essential usage details; no fluff, but could be broken into clearer steps.

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 no output schema, the description could explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message, link, token). It explains input options but not the outcome behavior in detail. Since it's a simple auth tool with one optional paramton, the completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage but the description explains the token parameter: it is a JWT to paste for session-only loginable. It also clarifies behavior when omitted (gets link). This provides meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 authenticates a user for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) via browser login and access token. It distinguishes itself by explaining the two modes (permanent config vs session token) and mentions specific context (MCP.AI), making it distinct from generic auth tools.

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 guidance on when to use it and how: either add token to server config for permanent connection, or pass token for session-only login, or call with no args to get link. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but clearly explains the two usage paths.

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