session_set_context

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful behavior: feedback '+Name'/'-Name' adjusts recall weight, and retire_entry_id replaces an outdated entry. However, it does not explain side effects such as whether entries are appended or deduplicated, how confidence is used, or what happens to the session context after writes.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in section categories plus the recall-weight behavior without wasted words. It is concise, though the long list and parenthetical make it slightly harder to skim.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return behavior or at least confirm side effects. With six parameters and many sibling tools, the description leaves ambiguity around session_id semantics, dataset/confidence usage, and the full consequences of retiring entries or using +/- feedback.

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%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It adds meaning only for retire_entry_id and the feedback content convention, while session_id, section, content, dataset, and confidence remain essentially explained only by their 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a session context entry,' and enumerates valid section names like goals, rules, preferences, lessons_learned, and feedback. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like recall or session_get, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for direct write comparisons.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remember, session_add_turn, session_get, or recall. The description implies it is for writing context entries, but it does not state when it should be preferred over other session or memory tools.

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