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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the update reaches no one directly (no attendee/speaker notification), that it is reversible (one more call restores old values), and that it therefore needs no confirmation. It also states the auth requirement (user's Cotlet API key with app access). This is exactly the behavioral context for a mutation tool that annotations can't convey.

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?

Purpose and field list are front-loaded, and each sentence carries a distinct fact (patch semantics, batching, reversibility, auth). The middle sentence is packed and slightly run-on, but nothing is redundant.

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 8-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: reversibility, notification behavior, auth, and partial-update semantics. Annotations already carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (no explicit mention of required event_id/session_id together), so it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with formats (ISO 8601, ID sources). The description only echoes the field names and adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Change) and resource (an existing session) and enumerates the updatable fields (time, tracks, speakers, description). The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from whova_add_session, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Explains PATCH-style semantics ('changes the fields you send and leaves the others as they are') and adds a concrete operational note that moving a block of sessions requires one call per session. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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