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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false and idempotentHint true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds process context (browser login, config header) but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether a session is stored server-side, or what happens on successful auth). It explains the flow but not the state changes or response structure, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 quickly detailing the two invocation paths. Every phrase adds value—nothing is redundant or padded. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 covers the invocation modes, configuration option, and token format. It lacks details on error handling or response content, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, the description is reasonably complete. The guidance on permanent vs session setup adds practical completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the 'token' parameter. It clearly states that token is a JWT passed after the user pastes it, and that no arguments yields a login link. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema (which only lists a string property), compensating well for the lack of schema documentation.

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: authenticate an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It specifies two distinct usage modes (config header for permanent access, or passing a token for session login), making its function unambiguous even among siblings like 'connect'.

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 explicit instructions on when to use each method: permanent config vs session-based token. The description tells the agent how to call the tool (with or without token) and what the user should do. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'connect' or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks direct exclusion guidance.

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