cutbolt_session_create

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the burden is lower, yet the description adds real value: it explains that re-sending identical arguments returns the original receipt (idempotency mechanics) and forces an existing store_root. It doesn't describe failure modes or what revision/project the call 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, purpose front-loaded, followed by the hard prerequisite and the retry rule. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the creation modes, the store_root prerequisite, and idempotent retry behavior. It hints at a 'receipt' return value but doesn't state what the call yields, leaving a small gap.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including request_id's uniqueness and retry semantics. The description's mention of id/width/height/frame_rate and the snapshot merely recaps the schema's two-mode structure without adding syntax or format detail, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Start a saved project at revision 0') and enumerates the two creation modes (id/width/height/frame_rate vs. full snapshot), which clearly sets it apart from session_get/apply/undo. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, but the purpose is 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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite ('store_root must be an existing local directory') and a retry pattern ('Retry with the same request_id and arguments'), giving clear operational context. It does not state when to prefer the snapshot mode over the id/dimensions mode or list exclusions, so it lands just below the top.

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