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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the URL: it doesn't say whether the status change is reversible, whether it restarts/stops a running session, or what constraints exist — and the name and endpoint already convey the same information.

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, front-loaded fragments with no filler. The endpoint restatement is low-value but costs almost nothing in length.

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 mutation endpoint with two undocumented parameters, allowed additional properties on the body, and no output schema, the description does not supply enough for confident correct invocation. Against annotations that cover only the safety profile, the missing semantics of the status field and the operation's effect remain a real gap.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it never explains that 'id' is the LLM session identifier or what the ACTIVE/INACTIVE status values actually toggle. The body.status enum is visible in the schema, but the lifecycle meaning of the transition is left entirely 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+resource ('Update LLM session status') and repeats the concrete endpoint path, so the agent knows exactly which resource is mutated. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling status-updaters (put_strategy_code_id_status, put_webhook_bot_id_status, etc.), but the named resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the adjacent siblings (put_strategy_llm_session_id_public, _reset, or plain put_strategy_llm_session_id) that also target the same session. The agent must infer that this is the status-toggle variant purely from the name.

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