Initialize the OneGuard session

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the key is stored in an isolated config directory, does not affect the user's own terminal login, and the tool verifies against the backend. It doesn't fully describe failure modes or what happens on repeated calls, but the idempotent annotation covers that.

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 well-structured: states the action, explains when it's unnecessary, gives the exact condition for calling, and adds a security warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter initialization tool with idempotent and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to call, what it does, side effects on storage, and the security constraint. No output schema exists, but the description's verification mention implies what the agent needs to know.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is simple. The description adds the crucial semantic that omitting the key uses the server-configured ONEGUARD_API_KEY, which goes beyond the schema's 'Omit to use the ONEGUARD_API_KEY configured on the server' — actually the schema already says this. The description reinforces the security constraint about not inventing keys. Baseline 3 for full coverage, but the description adds meaningful context about the key's origin and storage.

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 tool initializes the server's isolated OneGuard session with an API key and verifies it against the backend. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only initialization tool among the listed operations.

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 explicitly says when NOT to call it (normally not needed, auto-initializes), when to call it (only when another tool reports the server is not initialized), and provides a critical constraint (only use a key the user gave in this conversation, never invent one). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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