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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: it explains that calling with no args returns a link, and that token-based login is session-only while config is permanent. It also notes the token is a JWT, going beyond the schema. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then expanding into usage modes. It's efficient, but slightly verbose with phrases like 'for a permanent, non-expiring connection' that could be trimmed. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, optional-arg tool, the description covers the main scenarios (permanent vs session) and invocation patterns. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but given the simple nature and no output schema, it's adequate. Annotations cover safety, and the description provides enough context 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 schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description. The description fully compensates: it explains the token is an access token from the browser, optional (no args yields a link), and must be a JWT when provided. This adds critical semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It explicitly distinguishes the two primary usage modes (permanent config vs. session-only) and contrasts with sibling tools that serve different functions (e.g., connect, 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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: the 'Best' approach for permanent connections and the alternative for session-only logins. It also explains how to invoke the tool with/without the token parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare to siblings like 'connect', leaving some implicit.

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