Create XDaLa session start handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool's read-only nature, that it does not sign/submit/execute, and returns a Workbench xdalaUrl. It also explains limitations and constraints, such as requiring explicit user permission for demo values and correct usage of session ownership terms. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 lengthy but front-loaded with the main purpose and usage. Each sentence adds value, though some sections (e.g., detailed instructions about owner()/getOwner()) could be condensed. For the complexity of the tool, the verbosity is justified and well-organized.

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?

Given the complexity (22 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers main use cases, return value, and agent actions. It addresses user interaction and data derivation. However, it does not fully explain error scenarios or all parameter combinations, leaving some gaps for edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by referencing canonical xgr-session-start@1 terminology (sessions[].orchestration, etc.), clarifies that entryStepId is not used, and provides guidance on deriving payload fields. However, it does not detail all 22 parameters (e.g., signing, executorGrants, security), leaving some gaps in semantic clarity for less prominent parameters.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Prepare and store a read-only xgr-session-start@1 handoff for xDaLa Workbench.' It then enumerates multiple use cases (start, run, launch, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_xdala_session_start_handoff and cancel_xdala_session_start_handoff. The purpose is clear and non-overlapping.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this tool whenever the user wants to start...') and lists specific scenarios. It also includes exclusions and warnings: 'Do not call this tool with guessed payload values,' 'Do not replace the xdalaUrl with a generic /operations/op_... link,' and advises on when to ask for user input. This clearly helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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