jules_create_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important non-obvious default that Jules auto-approves its plan and explains how to force human/model inspection first. This materially changes what happens when the tool is invoked, though other side effects like branch changes or execution details are not mentioned.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the source-format detail plus the plan-approval caveat each earn their place without repeating schema property names.

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?

With an output schema present and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral contract and the most non-obvious parameter formats. It omits some details like starting_branch semantics and prerequisites for a connected source, but the tool is still callable correctly with the information provided.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the accepted formats for source and the meaning of require_plan_approval, but prompt, title, and starting_branch are left entirely to their names. This is helpful but only partially covers the parameter surface.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Create'), names the resource ('Jules coding session'), and scopes it to 'a connected GitHub source'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jules_list_sessions, jules_send_message, and jules_approve_plan.

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 tool's creation purpose is unambiguous, and the description gives clear guidance on when to set require_plan_approval. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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