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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the two login modes (permanent via config vs session-only via token) and what the no-args call returns (a link). It does not contradict annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds context about the auth flow, though it doesn't mention error handling or token validation outcomes.

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 somewhat long but well-structured with a lead sentence followed by 'Best:' and 'Or' alternatives. Each sentence contributes necessary information, and the most important purpose is front-loaded. No repetitive or irrelevant 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 main actions: how to obtain a link, how to authenticate with a token, and the distinction between permanent and session-based access. It misses potential edge cases (e.g., invalid token behavior), but overall it's complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the 'token' parameter as an optional JWT to paste for session login, and specifies that passing no args gets the link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition, effectively documenting the parameter's role and optionality.

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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with specific instructions to log in via browser and obtain a token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication, not general connectivity. The verb and resource are explicit, and it's not a tautology.

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 instructions: either add the token to server config for a permanent connection, or paste it for session-only login, and how to call with/without arguments. It gives context on when to use each mode, though it doesn't explicitly mention when to avoid this tool versus alternatives like 'connect'.

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