create_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a creation step and the first action in a collaboration lifecycle, and it gives follow-up guidance. But it does not describe side effects, whether a session identifier is returned, persistence, permissions, or what happens on duplicate/conflicting session creation—so behavioral transparency remains partial.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, automatic triggers, workflow position, parameters, and follow-up. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary—some trigger bullets restate the opening sentence—but each section earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives after creation, especially a session identifier needed by join_session and send_message. It explains when to call and the parameter semantics, but the missing return/result contract is a meaningful gap for orchestrating the next steps.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It compensates well by explaining every parameter: title and task_description are described, plan is defined as 'list of task dicts (step, task, assigned_to)', rules is defined as 'session rules (max_agents, require_assignment)', and created_by is identified as 'Your agent identifier' with its default. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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-object pair: 'Create a new collaboration session for multi-agent research.' It clearly names the resource (collaboration session) and separates this from sibling session tools by emphasizing 'multi-agent research' and positioning it as the first tool in a collaboration workflow.

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 explicitly states automatic triggers ('Starting a new multi-agent research task', 'User asks to set up a collaboration session', 'You need to coordinate work across multiple agents') and workflow position ('First tool in any collaboration workflow'). It also points to the next steps (join_session, send_message). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, such as when a session already exists.

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