avanza_live_session_authorize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core side effect (enabling live mutation permission) and preconditions, but it does not mention what happens on success, whether the permission persists, or how failures surface. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core action and the critical prerequisite are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the definition is somewhat thin. It explains what the tool does and its prerequisites, but it does not describe expected results, session-scope behavior, or edge cases around session_id/tenant_session_id. This is sufficient for a simple authorization gate, though more context would help.

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?

The description adds important meaning by requiring acknowledge=true, which goes beyond the schema's default false. However, it does not clarify the purpose of reason or the relationship/session scoping details beyond what the schema already provides, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('enable'), a clear resource ('live mutation permission'), and scopes it to the active MCP/TUI session. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling revoke tool and other session tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the required read_write mode and acknowledge=true prerequisite. It does not explicitly name the alternative (revoke) or state when not to use it, but the enabling action is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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