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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description usefully adds that nothing is written directly — it always produces a Stream card the user must tap, and that it only fires on request. That mechanism is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the guardrail. The parentheticals and Swedish terms add local color without bloating it, though "ALWAYS" capped and the mixed-language examples are slightly noisy.

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 10 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations present, the description only needs to establish intent and the suggestion-card behavior, which it does. Series-specific parameters (repeat/until) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its richness.

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 each parameter is already well documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal value, clarifying that "kind other" maps to a match/show/förhör test day, which is a small semantic gain over the enum.

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 (suggest a new session) and scopes it to groups the person leads, distinguishing one-off events from weekly series. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling change_session, but the noun/verb pairing is unambiguous on its own.

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?

"Only when they ask" gives a clear triggering condition, and the description conveys the mechanism (a suggestion card the user taps to confirm) rather than a silent write. No explicit when-not or named alternative, 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.