Update advisor session state

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that writes are 'durable' and cost-free relative to an advisor call. It omits what happens with an unknown session_id, whether omitted fields are preserved, and any confirmation of returned state.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the value proposition ('without spending an advisor call') is placed after the action so the agent reads what it does first.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the field vocabulary but leaves merge semantics and failure behavior unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call, but not enough to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does map loosely onto four of the five parameters (goal, constraints, touched files, open questions). However, it never clarifies append-vs-replace behavior (add_constraints vs replace_open_questions) or session_id's role, so the semantics only come from 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Record') with the concrete state fields it writes (goal, constraints, touched files, open questions), and the clause 'without spending an advisor call' implicitly separates it from consult_advisor. It never says 'session' outright and doesn't name reset_advisor_session or get_advisor_session as siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Without spending an advisor call' gives a clear selection rule: use this for cheap state persistence instead of invoking the advisor, which points an agent toward consult_advisor as the alternative. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, such as not using it to retrieve or reset state.

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