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

The description discloses important behavior: no-args returns a login link, token submission enables session-only login, and config header enables permanent connection. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict this; it adds useful context about persistence and session behavior.

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 fairly compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Three sentences cover the browser flow, permanent config option, and session-only alternative. Some phrasing is slightly run-on, but each sentence adds necessary operational detail.

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 one-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description explains the auth flow, the optional token parameter, and the two login modes. It does not describe the exact return value beyond 'get the link', but the coverage is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 input schema only declares an optional string token with no description, so the description carries the burden. It explains the token as a JWT/access token to paste after user login and explicitly shows the call pattern { token: "<jwt>" }, plus no-args behavior. This adequately compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 identifies the tool as an authentication/login flow for IDE agents: log in in the browser and copy an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on token-based authentication, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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 practical guidance: use the server config header for permanent non-expiring access, paste the token for session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. It does not explicitly discuss when to use sibling tools, but it clearly explains the two main usage paths.

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