create_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add meaningful context: domain-grounding switches are stored per session, not globally, and the returned notice must be shown to the user before the grounding stage starts. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not cover all side effects or return behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The extra behavioral details about domain-grounding and the user notice earn their place, though the phrase 'P0 is single-learner' is jargon that could be clearer.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only partially clarifies session creation behavior. It does not explain return values, the meaning of topic, how request_id is used, or the full set of domain-grounding switches, so an agent has insufficient context to call it reliably.

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 clarifies learner_id ('required, P0 is single-learner') and domain_grounding_warn_user ('returned notice must be shown to the user'). However, other parameters including topic, request_id, learner_name, and allow_skip_domain_grounding are not semantically explained, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the tool creates a learning session, using the specific verb 'create' and the resource 'learning session'. This naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_info, find_session, and complete_session, which are read/find/complete operations.

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 gives a prerequisite ('learner_id is required') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never names sibling tools or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer that creating is different from fetching or completing.

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