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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behaviors: the browser login flow, the distinction between permanent and session-only access, and the no-args behavior that yields a link. It also explains the recommended header configuration. This adds substantial context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential flow. It contains three related pieces of guidance in a logical sequence, and each sentence adds useful information. Slight wordiness in 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' prevents a perfect score, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it: no args gets the link, token arg authenticates, and config header is the preferred long-term route. It could mention expected return values or error conditions, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 only a bare `token` string with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that `token` is the pasted JWT for session login and that omitting it triggers the login-link flow. This is meaningful added semantics, though it could elaborate on token format or failure behavior.

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 function: authenticating an IDE agent to MCP.AI by logging in via browser and supplying an access token. It provides concrete flow details (copy token, paste or configure as header), which is specific beyond just the tool name. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', so it falls short of a 5.

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 paths: add the token to server config for a permanent connection, paste it for session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. It also clearly distinguishes between the two authentication modes, providing strong practical guidance for an agent deciding 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.