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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by explaining that calling with no args returns a login link and that passing a token establishes a session, while adding to config creates a non-expiring header. This discloses side effects (permanent changes to config) and the non-mutating nature of the session-only option. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral detail, though it omits error-handling edge cases (e.g., invalid token).

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 verbose, including a directive for IDE agents and two alternatives, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds value. It could be tightened (e.g., removing the parenthetical about Cursor), but it remains well-structured and scannable.

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 both invocation styles, the expected return (a link), and the permanent vs session distinction. It fully explains the behavior within the context of the annotations, making it complete for an agent to use 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 string parameter 'token' with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining its purpose: when the user pastes a JWT, the tool should be called with { token: '<jwt>' }, and when not provided, it returns a login link. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It explains the two modes (permanent config vs session-only) and the flow, which unambiguously distinguishes 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 usage guidance: it instructs when to call with no args to get a link, when to pass a token after user pastes, and recommends adding the token to config for a permanent connection. It also differentiates between permanent and session-only setups, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool.

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