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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds behavioral context: using the config header gives a permanent non-expiring connection, while passing a token gives a session-only login. It also clarifies that calling with no args returns a login link. This goes beyond structured data, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid tokens.

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 paragraph but well-structured, leading with the action then presenting two clear options. It's slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, with no repetition. It could be more concise by trimming redundancy, but it remains focused.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers all necessary information: the authentication flow, the two modes (config vs session), and the case of no arguments. It's complete for an agent to understand how and when to invoke it, given the minimal schema and annotations.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'token' parameter. The description compensates fully by explaining the token is a JWT to be pasted after the user logs in, and that passing it provides session authentication. It also explains the alternative of using config header and calling with no args to get the link, which fully clarifies parameter 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: to authenticate the MCP server for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only authentication tool, and uses specific verbs ('log in', 'copy', 'add', 'paste') tied to the auth resource.

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 usage options: either add the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or paste it as a parameter for session-only login. It also explains when to call with no args (to get the link). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any alternatives, though none exist among the siblings.

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