macro_start_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the composite side effects (project creation, agent registration) and marks file reservations as 'optional', which is useful. It says nothing about failure/partial-rollback semantics, idempotency, or whether repeated calls re-register the agent, which matters for a multi-step mutating macro.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the macro framing front-loaded and the sub-steps following in execution order. No padding, though it is dense enough that the enumerated steps blur together slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for an 11-parameter, multi-effect macro with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the one-sentence description leaves meaningful gaps around required credentials and parameter meaning.

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 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only conceptually covers the reservation paths and the inbox snapshot; the required keys (human_key, program, model), plus registration_token, format, and task_description are left entirely unexplained. An agent must guess the meaning and format of most inputs.

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 and resource ('boots a project session') and enumerates the composite steps it performs: ensure project, register agent, optional file reservations, inbox snapshot. This makes it distinguishable from the single-purpose siblings (ensure_project, register_agent, fetch_inbox), though it never explicitly names them as alternatives.

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?

'Boots a project session' implies the bootstrap use case, and the macro framing suggests it replaces several calls at once. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. registration_token requirements), and no guidance on when to prefer the atomic siblings instead.

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