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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it notes establishing a permanent non-expiring connection via config, or a session-only login when the token is passed in. It also explains the response behavior for the no-args case ('to get the link'). Annotations are not contradicted, though it does not depth on side effects or error states.

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, dense block that front-loads the key action and then lays out two distinct usage paths. Every clause adds relevant operational detail. It is slightly wordy with the 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' extra framing, but it remains informative.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the important workflow: how to obtain the token, how to store it permanently, how to pass it for a session, and how to retrieve the login link. It leaves out any explicit success/failure return details, but for this authentication tool the provided interaction flow is reasonably complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, this description carries the full burden of explaining the 'token' parameter. It provides real meaning: it is a JWT access token copied from the browser and used for session-only login via { token: '<jwt>' }. It could add more detail like syntax, expiry behavior, or whether the value is stored, but the core semantic is clear.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, with a concrete flow: log in, copy token, and authenticate via either a permanent header or a session-only token. It uses an active verb ('log in', 'authenticate') and specifies the resource (this server/connection), making it distinct from sibling tools like connect.

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 gives explicit usage context: it explains the recommended permanent setup (add Authorization header) versus the temporary option (paste token as a parameter), plus the no-args call to get the login link. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like connect, but it provides enough situational guidance for the agent to choose the right invocation.

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