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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload (new state plus moderator note) and the advisor_unavailable gating behavior, but it says nothing about failure modes, invalid transitions, or what a rejected action does to session state.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (the transition targets) comes first. The nested parentheses make it slightly hard to parse but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back, and for a non-idempotent mutation of a state machine that is important. Against that complexity, though, it never explains the legal transition graph, omits one enum value entirely, and gives no error or retry behavior, so the state-machine semantics remain underspecified.

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 50%: session_id is documented in-schema ("From open_session (ses_…)") while the action enum is not. The description partially compensates by glossing four of the five enum values, but it silently drops start_research, leaving the highest-impact action unexplained in both places.

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 verb phrase "Moves a Closelooknet session on" plus the enumeration of target states makes clear this is a state-transition tool, which distinguishes it from open_session (creation) and session_message (communication). However, the enumeration omits start_research, which is in the enum, and the domain jargon (advice_required, advisor_unavailable) is used without definition.

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?

Precondition hints are embedded in parentheses ("continue_research_only (after advice_required)", "request_advisor (answers advisor_unavailable...)"), which implies ordering rules without stating them normatively. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over session_message for the same session, nor what to do if the session is in the wrong state.

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