create_session

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the output ('shareable join URL') as a positive, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistent record creation), permissions, or any behavioral nuances. 'Create' implies mutation, but the description does not elaborate on the creation's implications.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output. It contains no fluff or redundant information, and every word earns its place. The brevity is appropriate given the rich schema.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It only states the action and the return (a URL) but does not elaborate on what a 'Harmonica deliberation session' entails, prerequisites (e.g., template/project), or how the session behaves after creation. The schema fills in parameter meanings, but the description fails to provide broader operational context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 12 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but the schema is rich enough to compensate. The description does not contribute extra meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('Harmonica deliberation session'), and the outcome ('get a shareable join URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_session, get_session, and create_project.

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. It does not mention when to use it over other session tools or any prerequisites. The only usage hints come from the parameter descriptions in the schema, not from the tool description itself.

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