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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that calling with no args returns a link, while passing a token enables session login. It also mentions the option of permanent non-expiring connection via config, which is a side effect or external step. Annotations mark idempotent and non-destructive, which align with the description. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides meaningful user-flow details.

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 single sentence with a colon, but it packs substantial information: primary purpose, two usage modes, and token type. It is front-loaded with the main verb and context. It's slightly dense but efficient, covering necessary details without fluff. Could be broken into clearer sections, but it's not overly verbose.

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 essential scenarios: getting a link with no args, session login with token, and recommendation for permanent config. It doesn't describe the exact output format (e.g., is the link a URL?), but given simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It also aligns with annotations for safety.

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 only defines an optional 'token' string with no description coverage (0%). The description compensates by explaining 'token' is a JWT and shows how to pass it ({ token: '<jwt>' }) and when not to pass it (no args for link). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it could explicitly state the token is a JWT in the schema description. Overall, it covers the parameter's purpose and usage.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the workflow (log in via browser, copy access token) and distinguishes it from potential siblings by naming the specific use case (IDE agents like Cursor). The verb+resource is explicit: authenticate with token or get link.

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 guidelines for two modes: permanent configuration (adding token to server config) and session-only (passing token or no args to get link). It explains when to use each variant, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'connect' or conditions for not using it. The guidance is actionable but lacks explicit when-not-to-use versus siblings.

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