create_session

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

Annotations declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive write, and the description adds behavior beyond that: the session is 'offered in the Takes app unless open=false', pointing at a side effect. It doesn't mention permissions, whether a session is created in an existing project, or what happens on duplicate titles, but for an annotated creation tool this adds useful side-effect context.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, then the open=false caveat. Efficient and readable, though the parenthetical 'see open_in_app' points at another tool rather than resolving the behavior inline.

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?

Covers the main creation flow, the required title, and the app-offering side effect. Without an output schema, it could say more about what is returned (a session id?) and how variants relate to the session, but for a 5-param tool with full schema coverage it is reasonably complete.

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 title, script, project (created if missing, default Inbox), variants shape, and open default. The description repeats 'title' and 'script' but adds little new parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the parameter burden.

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+resource ('Create a recording session') and enumerates the key inputs (title, teleprompter script, optional variants). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like create_project or create_variants, which are named differently for different resources.

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 notes the 'open=false (see open_in_app)' branch, which hints at a usage condition for app offering. But it doesn't say when to use this versus create_project, update_session, or create_variants — usage is implied rather than stated.

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