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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the token can be provided once in config for a non-expiring session or per-call for a single session, and that no arguments will return a link. It doesn't reveal rate limits or detailed side effects, but for this tool, the behavior is well-covered.

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 a bit run-on with a colon-heavy sentence but remains efficient, packing two use cases and a no-arg option into a single sentence. Every part adds value, though it could be broken into bullet points for better readability. Minor grammar quirks (e.g., 'in the browser') don't detract much.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and a single purpose, the description covers the essential scenarios: permanent config-based auth, session-based token input, and link retrieval with no args. It could mention error cases or what a user should expect after successful auth, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 provides a parameter named 'token' with no description. The description explicitly explains the token parameter: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and gives meaning to the otherwise bare parameter.

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 authenticates with MCP.AI for IDE agents, describing the specific flow of logging in via browser and copying an access token. It distinguishes between permanent (config header) and session-based authentication, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 gives concrete usage guidance by explaining two usage modes: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection or pasting it for a session-only login. It also mentions calling with no args to get the link. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace', though this isn't strictly necessary for a clear auth flow.

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