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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that using a config header yields a 'permanent, non-expiring connection' while pasting a token gives a 'session-only login'. It also clarifies the outcome of calling with no arguments (getting the link). These details align with the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotations, and no contradictions are present.

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 three sentences long and efficiently conveys the essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then details usage options. While slightly dense, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and each 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, token semantics, and behavioral outcomes. It is complete enough for an agent to successfully invoke the tool in both direct-token and config-based scenarios.

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 fully compensates. It explains that the 'token' parameter is a JWT to paste for a session-only login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This provides semantics the schema lacks entirely, making the parameter's purpose and usage clear.

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: to authenticate the MCP server for IDE agents by logging in and obtaining an access token. It explicitly mentions the resource (MCP.AI server) and action (authenticate), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication rather than connection or other utilities.

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: how to permanently add the token to the server config, or how to use a session-only token via the token parameter, and how to get the link by calling with no args. It gives clear context on when to use each approach, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'connect' or state when not to use this tool.

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