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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by explaining the two modes (config header vs session token), the JWT format, and the browser login flow. It goes beyond the annotations in detailing security aspects and session persistence, though it doesn't describe the return value or side effects beyond the link.

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 one long paragraph with many clauses, making it dense and harder to parse. While all information is relevant, it could be restructured into clearer sections (e.g., configuration vs session-based flow) to improve readability. It front-loads the main purpose but then mixes details of both methods.

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 an authentication tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key behaviors: how to obtain a link, how to provide a token, and the persistent vs session options. It gives enough context for an agent to decide how to invoke it, though it could mention what the tool returns (e.g., the link itself) explicitly.

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 0% description coverage for the token parameter, but the description fully explains its meaning: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' This clarifies that the token is a JWT and optional, directly compensating for the schema gap.

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: 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It defines the action (authenticate) and distinguishes from siblings like connect and marketplace by detailing the token-based authentication flow.

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?

It explicitly explains two usage scenarios: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header ... for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond these methods.

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