zap_auth_session_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an authorization constraint ('the requested target must remain on the profile's authorized origin'), which is genuine behavioral context. It does not, however, disclose whether preparing a session mutates server state, what happens to a previously prepared session, or what the operation returns.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then routing guidance, then the constraint. Nothing is padded, though the kind-based guidance sits slightly off to the side of the actual parameters.

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 stateful 'prepare' tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, profile-kind routing, and an origin constraint, but omits side effects, session lifetime, and return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 both parameters (profileId, targetUrl) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the targetUrl origin constraint but adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare a guided auth session from an operator-managed profile'), which is clear enough for an agent to know it sets up authentication rather than validating it. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling zap_auth_session_validate, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 second sentence gives real routing guidance ('kind=browser profile for Client Spider, or kind=form for HTTP spider and active scans'), which tells the agent which profile kind fits which downstream workflow. However, 'kind' is a property of the operator-managed profile, not of this tool's parameters, and no alternative tool or when-not condition is named, leaving the guidance indirect.

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