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

With annotations indicating readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, the description adds context about outcomes (permanent vs. session-only) and the flow (browser login, token copy). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details beyond the minimal structured data.

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 with no redundancies, front-loading the core action ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and then providing precise alternatives. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: how to invoke with and without a token, the two authentication modes, and their implications. It is complete for an IDE agent to use correctly without further guidance.

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 has only an optional 'token' parameter with zero schema description coverage. The description fully explains it: passing a JWT for session login, and omitting it to obtain a link. This compensates completely for the lack of schema metadata, giving clear semantics.

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 IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' and detailing the authentication flow, making it distinct from a generic 'connect' tool.

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 clear usage guidance by outlining two modes: permanent configuration via a header and session-only login via a token. It explains when to use each, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the context is well implied.

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