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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses auth token requirements, Bearer forwarding, payload defaulting, JWT return semantics, TTL, and a best-effort side effect on the workspace end-user row. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations reveal.

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 organized into short, labeled sections and front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds useful information, such as TTL, email persistence, source route, and configuration guidance.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the endpoint, authentication, key parameters, return value, side effects, and an alternative tool. It does not detail the full response shape or error behavior, but for a session-creation tool the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the key parameters: `auth.firebaseToken` is required and forwarded as a Bearer token, `workspaceName` scopes the session, `payload` defaults to `{}`, and `connection.workspaceName`/`connection.appId` serve as stable config. It does not explicitly describe `app_id` or `host`, but the schema already provides descriptions for those, so the main call parameters are well covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it verifies a Firebase ID token, creates a session for `workspaceName`, stores `payload`, and returns `sessionToken`. It also names the sibling alternative `POST /sessions/get-or-create`, distinguishing this tool from the get-or-create variant.

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 says to prefer `POST /sessions/get-or-create` for hosted-login-style flows that should reuse an active session, giving concrete routing guidance. It also advises using `connection.workspaceName` and `connection.appId` as stable config rather than generating identity fields dynamically.

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