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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: it requires user interaction in a browser, the token can be provided via config for a non-expiring connection or via argument for a session-only login, and calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive), adding valuable context about the authentication flow and token persistence. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. It uses a single paragraph with clear instructions and alternatives. It's slightly dense but every sentence adds value. The structure is logical: purpose, recommended method, alternative method, and call syntax. No wasted words.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the authentication flow, the two modes, and how to invoke the tool. It doesn't describe the return value, but since there's no output schema, that's acceptable. It could mention what happens after successful authentication (e.g., confirmation message), but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use it 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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT to be pasted for session-only login, and that calling without args returns a link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't provide detailed format or validation rules. Given the low coverage, the description does a decent job, but could be more explicit about the token format.

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 via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes between two usage modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token argument) and explicitly mentions the target audience (IDE agents like Cursor), which differentiates it from sibling tools like connect or show_version.

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 when-to-use guidance: it explains the recommended approach (adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection) and the alternative (pasting the token for a session-only login). It also specifies how to call the tool with or without arguments, covering both scenarios. This is clear and actionable, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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