session_add_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a mutating operation ('Add') but does not disclose what files are changed, whether existing security settings are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects may occur.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler and every word earns its place, even though the trade-off is a lack of detail captured under other dimensions.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the definition is incomplete. It omits preconditions, effects on the target directory, how the session security is applied, and what the caller should expect after invocation, leaving an agent to guess important runtime behavior.

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?

The description adds no meaning for the parameters beyond what the input schema provides. The schema already describes 'directory' as 'Project directory', but 'api_key' remains undocumented, and the description does not clarify how either parameter is used or why api_key is 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 clearly states the action ('Add session security') and names the specific protections included (CSRF, fixation protection). It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like auth_generate_session or session_add_redis.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as auth_generate_session or session_add_redis. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between related session tools.

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