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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the permanence of the config-header approach versus session-only token paste, and mentions the need for a browser login. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false) and adds useful context about the connection duration.

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 concise, with three sentences that cover the essential flow. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details the two methods. No unnecessary information is included, though it could be slightly more compact without losing 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?

For a simple authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the user action (browser login), the two authentication methods, and the calling convention. An agent has enough context to decide when and how to use this 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 provides only the parameter name 'token' with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining the token's purpose and usage: it should be a JWT pasted by the user, and that calling with no args retrieves a link. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents by obtaining a login link or accepting an access token. It uses specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token,' and explains the two main flows. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect', which could also handle connections, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explicit usage instructions: adding a config header for permanent access or pasting a token for session-only login, and calling with no args to get the link. It gives clear context on when to use each method. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect', so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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