create_session

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: a tier gate, the signature requirement (EIP-712/EIP-191), the backing API/authority endpoints, and that it returns a one-time sessionToken. This is meaningful operational detail. It does not cover token lifetime, reuse, or error behavior on failed signature.

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 core action sentence is front-loaded and short, but the bracketed capability/API metadata is dense noise for an agent. Reasonably efficient but padded by internal config annotations.

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 6-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers auth/signature and the returned token but leaves most parameter semantics and the session lifecycle unexplained. Adequate as a starting point, not complete.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It mentions 'signature' and the two signature types but never maps nonce, issuedAt, agentName, agentAddress, or signatureType to semantics, leaving most parameters undocumented anywhere.

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+resource ('Create a persistent agent session') and adds a capability/tier/API prefix. It is distinguishable from siblings like session_heartbeat or grant_session_key, but the description never contrasts with them explicitly.

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?

Gives a precondition ('tier: pioneer_plus', normal callers need a fresh signature), which implies usage context. It does not say when to prefer this over the nearby session-management siblings (session_heartbeat, grant_session_key, session_key_status) or what 'normal callers' excludes.

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