session

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows some operations can destroy data. The description notes 'Write: requires project=...', adding a required precondition for mutations, but it doesn't specify which actions are destructive, what gets destroyed (e.g., ending a session deletes it?), or permission requirements. Given the tool bundles both read and write actions, the description could do much more to disclose which actions have which effects.

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 very brief—two sentences—and front-loads the action list. However, the information is sparse and not well-structured for such a complex tool, and the write requirement is appended without explanation, making it feel terse rather than efficient.

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?

With 13 parameters, only 15% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond hints, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what each action does, which parameters apply to which actions, what the tool returns, or what side effects occur. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the supplied information.

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 only 15%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions the project parameter requirement for writes. Ten other parameters (limit, model, summary, outcomes, project_id, session_id, key_decisions, focus_problem_id, focus_component_id, user_prompt_summary, assistant_response_summary) are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent without essential knowledge about what they do or when they 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 states 'Manage sessions' and lists six actions, which conveys the general purpose but is vague. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like start_here or handoff, which could also manage session-related workflows, and 'manage' is a generic verb that doesn't specify the tool's unique scope.

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 lists available actions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions for choosing among the actions. Siblings such as start_here and handoff suggest overlapping functionality, yet the description doesn't clarify boundaries.

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