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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute two real behavioral facts: the operation is idempotent and it requires registered-user JWT auth. It stops short of explaining idempotency semantics (does a repeat call return the existing session id?), what the caller receives, or any failure modes, which matters for a creation endpoint that downstream calls depend on.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the auth requirement second; no filler, no restatement of the tool name beyond what is needed. Everything present earns its place.

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 three-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, idempotency, and auth. The main omission is what the call yields (presumably a session identifier consumed by actora_gateway_chat), which the absence of an output schema makes more important to state, but the remainder is adequate.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented inline, giving a baseline of 3. The description only restates that access_token is a required registered-user JWT — duplicating the schema — and adds nothing about how title or agent_id affect the created session.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create a conversation session") and clarifies the domain term with "dialog container", so an agent knows exactly what object is produced. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the task-oriented siblings (create_task, chat, get_task), but the resource distinction is clear enough to separate it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer a session is the prerequisite container for chat/agent interactions, and the description states the auth prerequisite (registered-user JWT). There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus actora_gateway_chat or actora_gateway_create_task, and no exclusions or prerequisite sequencing described.

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