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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write in an open-world domain, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully narrows scope to writes of rating and notes only, but it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the report must pre-exist, or who is authorized to edit it.

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?

A single sentence with no filler that front-loads the two mutable fields and the resource scope. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema beyond the brief rating range, and it is easy to scan.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call correctly. It is missing the two things a caller would still wonder about: when to choose it over sibling update tools and whether partial updates are safe.

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 logId provenance, the 2000-character notes limit, and the 1-5 rating range are all documented in the schema. The description merely restates the rating range, adding no semantics beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete action (setting rating and notes) on a concrete resource (a session report for an in-person coached session), which is more specific than the bare name. It does not distinguish itself from nearby update_* tools or clarify that this only applies to coached sessions rather than live/self-serve logs, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. update_assessment, get_workout_session), nor any prerequisite such as the session already having a report. The only implicit guidance is the schema note that logId comes from list_coached_sessions, which is not in the description itself.

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