update_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It reveals that this is a patch operation (implying partial updates), but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or what the response looks like. It also does not clarify behaviors like the difference between notes_append and notes_replace.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that quickly states the tool's purpose. It is not verbose, but it omits important usage and behavioral information that would improve its utility. Still, for what it communicates, it is concise and clear.

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?

Given the high complexity (13 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly insufficient. It provides no information about parameter details, return values, or edge cases. The agent would be forced to rely solely on parameter names and enums, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, and the description must compensate for 13 parameters. It vaguely references 'metadata, task state, notes, status, and optional progress details,' which maps loosely to several parameters but does not explain any specific parameter's meaning or interdependencies. A 2 reflects minimal value added beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 description uses the specific verb 'Patch' and clearly identifies the resource (session) along with the scope of changes: metadata, task state, notes, status, and optional progress details. This distinguishes it from siblings like append_progress (which appends progress) and complete_session (which changes status to completed).

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when to prefer update_session over append_progress or complete_session, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tool names are visible only in context signals, not in the description.

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