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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the HTTP verb PUT; it does not state whether this is a full replacement or a partial update, what gets overwritten, or any auth/permission requirements for a mutation with a rich body.

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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though the raw endpoint URL is largely redundant with the tool name and the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 complex mutation with a deeply nested configuration body and no output schema, the description does far too little: it never explains the update contract, the many configurable fields, or what identifies/affects the target session.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0% and the top-level id and body parameters are undocumented in the description. The nested body properties do carry schema-level descriptions, but the description itself adds no meaning beyond them, leaving the id and overall body contract unexplained.

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 (Update) and resource (LLM session), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely-named siblings like put_strategy_llm_session_id_public, _reset, or _status, so an agent cannot tell which variant to pick from the description alone.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the sibling tools that also mutate the same resource (public/reset/status variants, folder moves). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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