ms_gui_start_project_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the folder-creation behavior, workspace scope, naming convention, and a safety condition ('only when explicitly asked'). It does not fully catalog all session-switching side effects, but the schema's description of allowExistingSessionSwitch covers the prevention mechanism.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. The core action and location are front-loaded, and the usage caution is placed directly after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with only two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description plus schema provide enough context to invoke it correctly. It covers the folder naming, workspace scope, and when not to use it; return-value details are absent but not critical for this low-complexity operation.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already says: folderName is optional and defaults to an auto-generated date-based name, and allowExistingSessionSwitch guards against accidental switching. No additional semantics are needed.

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 precise verb+object: 'Start a new MS-MCP task/session folder under the workspace,' and includes the naming pattern (YYYY-MM-DD-1) plus its purpose ('for subsequent GUI modeling and calculation outputs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling GUI modeling tools by scoping it to session setup rather than modeling or calculation.

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 when to use it: 'Use only when the user explicitly asks for a new task/session.' It also gives an exclusion rule—normal modeling should reuse the Dashboard/current session—so an agent gets a crisp selection boundary without needing to infer it.

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