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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that using config results in a non-expiring connection while pasting a token gives a session-only login. It also describes the interaction flow (browser login, copying token). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the permanence and session semantics, without contradicting any annotation.

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 (about 80 words) and front-loaded with the target audience ('MCP.AI for IDE agents'). It efficiently structures the two authentication modes and invocation calls. A minor structure issue is that it reads as a single long sentence with multiple clauses, which slightly reduces readability, but it remains appropriately sized for the content.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios: how to authenticate permanently via config, how to authenticate for a session via token, and how to request the login link. It does not mention error cases or what happens after a token is provided, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, it is adequately complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema has a single optional 'token' property with no description and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the token parameter: it is a JWT to paste from the user, and when omitted, the tool returns the login link. This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and usage, exceeding the schema's minimal information.

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: authentication for IDE agents, specifically obtaining an access token via browser login. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on token-based authentication for MCP.AI, with explicit mention of two authentication flows (permanent config vs session token). The verb 'log in' and resource 'access token' are specific.

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 guidance: it recommends adding the token to config for permanent connection, or pasting a token for session-only login. It also instructs how to invoke the tool (with token or no args to get the link). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect', though the context makes it clear this is for authentication.

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