gograph_session_create

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

Annotations already declare mutating and non-idempotent, and the description reinforces this while adding specifics: it writes only repository-confined state under .gograph/sessions and refuses linked storage. It also clarifies there are no prerequisites. This adds context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 structured with labeled sections and front-loads the purpose. The sentence about 'MCP annotations mark it mutating and non-idempotent' is redundant since annotations are visible, but it doesn't significantly bloat the text. Overall, it 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use/not use, side effects (write location and storage refusal), and return value (session ID). There are no gaps for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, custom_word, with a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the schema fully compensates. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Start[s] a telemetry audit session' for tracking compliance and success metrics, distinguishing it from sibling session tools like audit, cleanup, and end. It also specifies the resource scope (session state under .gograph/sessions), making it unambiguous.

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?

WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections give explicit start-of-task and active-session conditions. It mentions no prerequisites once the MCP server is running, which is useful. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., gograph_session_audit), so differentiation is less explicit than it could be.

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