zap_auth_session_prepare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions a constraint on the target URL but does not explain whether the operation mutates state, creates credentials, returns a session handle, or requires prior setup. This is a significant gap for a tool that 'prepares' a session.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical constraint follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the definition is minimally viable: the purpose and key constraint are clear. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of behavioral and usage context leaves an agent uncertain about side effects, return value, and how this preparation step relates to the sibling validation tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description's 'authorized origin' constraint restates what the targetUrl schema property already conveys, adding little new parameter-level meaning. This matches the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Prepare') and the resource ('a guided auth session'), with meaningful qualifiers: it comes from an operator-managed profile and the target must stay on the authorized origin. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling zap_auth_session_validate, but the prepare/validate distinction is reasonably inferable from the verb.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zap_auth_session_validate or zap_attack_start. The authorized-origin constraint is a precondition, but the description does not state when to prepare versus validate a session, nor when this tool is not appropriate.

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