dsh_rename_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Rename' implies mutation, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the change is reversible, whether the title must be unique or length-limited, or whether an in-flight session can be renamed. The only added context is that the title appears in the sidebar.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and a short clarifying parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the sidebar note is the only non-obvious content in an otherwise terse line.

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 two-parameter, fully documented rename with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It stops short of stating the mutation's side effects or constraints, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want covered.

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 100% with two documented parameters ('New title', 'Session id'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, length, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, which lands at the baseline of 3.

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 (Rename) and resource (session), and the parenthetical clarifies which session surface is affected. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling dsh_rename_workspace by naming 'session' rather than 'workspace', though it never calls that distinction out explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (does the session need to exist, be idle, be owned by the caller?), and no mention of the sibling dsh_rename_workspace which is the obvious near-miss for an agent choosing a rename tool.

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