create_session_token

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it explains the two creation modes, lists defaults (e.g., avatar_model defaults to cara-3, llm_id defaults to GPT-4o-mini), and notes optional parameters. It could mention that the token is used for client SDK authentication, but the current level is adequate.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage note, then a clear Args list. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and mode distinction.

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 9 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters, explains their roles, and notes defaults. However, it does not mention constraints like max length for system_prompt or enums for avatar_model (it lists two options inline). Still, the completeness is high.

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 add meaning for parameters. It does so thoroughly with an Args section explaining each parameter, its purpose in ephemeral mode, and providing defaults (e.g., 'ephemeral, defaults to GPT-4o-mini'). This far exceeds the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a session token for the Anam client SDK.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (session token), and context (for Anam client SDK). It distinguishes between two modes (persona_id vs individual config fields), which helps the agent understand the two usage scenarios.

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 advises when to use each parameter set: 'Use EITHER persona_id (for saved personas) OR individual config fields (ephemeral).' It recommends persona_id for production and references sibling tools search_avatars and search_voices for finding appropriate IDs. This provides clear guidance on tool usage.

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