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

The annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, and the description adds meaningful behavior: no args returns a login link, a token creates a session-only login, and a config header creates a permanent non-expiring connection. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies state-changing behavior.

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 reasonably concise, with each sentence contributing a meaningful behavioral or usage detail. It is not overly long, though phrasings like 'log in in the browser' and 'Best: add it to this server's config...' could be tightened for clarity.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflows: browser login, permanent configuration, paste token session login, and no-arg link retrieval. It does not describe the failure case or the standard response, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT pasted by the user and that omitting it triggers the 'get login link' flow. This adds real semantic meaning to the otherwise bare token: string schema field.

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 explains that the tool authenticates by having the user log in through the browser and supply an access token. It distinguishes between permanent configuration-based authentication and session-only token paste, making the purpose and scope unambiguous and distinct from siblings like connect or marketplace.

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 guidance: use the permanent config header when you want a non-expiring connection, or paste a JWT for a session-only login. It also says to call with no arguments to obtain the login link. It could more directly position this tool against the sibling connect tool, but the primary alternatives are clearly described.

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