create_chute_session

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the propose-then-review-then-start lifecycle, the no-data-recorded side effect, widget arrangement constraints, and the EID-scanning reminder. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations lack.

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?

Every sentence carries content, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat dense as one paragraph with several rules (widget types, sizes, order, cap), so it could be tightened or bulleted, but nothing is filler.

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 complex widget-builder tool with no output schema and only two annotations, this description is unusually complete on input construction and lifecycle. It does not describe the API response after proposing or explicitly cover optional parameters, but those are documented in the schema and the flow is implied, leaving only minor 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 covers all six parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning for widgets: each type's UI behavior, options fields, size rules, ordering, and ~6-widget cap. It adds less for name, farm_id, group_name, record_type, and new_animal_fields, which rely on the schema, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Opens with a specific action and object — 'Propose a chute-mode work session' — and immediately clarifies that it creates only a PROPOSED session, distinguishing it from record-writing tools and update/list chute-session tools in the sibling set.

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?

The description establishes clear use context ('from a description of the day's work') and an important boundary ('proposing never records any data by itself'), implying this is not create_record or update_chute_session. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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