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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. Beyond that, the description adds two genuinely useful facts: the required scopes ('read and requests:write') and a privacy guarantee that no conversation or reasoning trace is stored. That is real context an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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?

Three terse clauses, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Slightly telegraphic, but every sentence carries information.

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?

It covers auth and privacy, which is more than most mutation tools offer, but for a 4-param create with zero schema descriptions and no output schema it omits parameter meaning and the resulting session/state. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters. The description gestures at 'capability steps and dependencies' but says nothing about request_id, intent, or current_stage (which has a 'planning' default). With no schema-level descriptions, the compensation required here is missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('task context'), and names the optional payload (capability steps and dependencies). The phrase 'compact task context' is mildly jargon-y, but it distinguishes this from close_task_session and get_task_session, which are the obvious siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites or sequencing relative to close_task_session/get_task_session, no mention of when capability steps should be supplied. The agent must infer the lifecycle position from the name alone.

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