start_google_ai_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'persisted session' but omits critical details like whether the tool opens a new browser tab, requires existing page state, involves user interaction, or has side effects (e.g., navigation). The lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 sentence of 16 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded and straightforward. The slight deduction is for the jargon 'chat-through-Codex/Claude workflows', which may be unfamiliar to some agents and could be rephrased for broader clarity.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain how this tool relates to siblings like 'open_google_ai' or what typical workflow involves (e.g., must be followed by 'continue_google_ai_session'). This lack of context may lead to incorrect sequencing or invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not explain how parameters interact or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it does not improve or worsen the parameter clarity.

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 defines the tool as starting a persisted Google AI Mode conversation session. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'continue_google_ai_session' and 'end_google_ai_session' by specifying 'start' and 'persisted', and it mentions the workflow context ('chat-through-Codex/Claude'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'google_ai_ask' (one-off question) or 'open_google_ai' (just opening the interface). There is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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