Update session persistence settings

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds only that it 'saves' the settings, which essentially restates the mutation behavior already implied by the annotations. It does not disclose persistence scope, whether partial updates are allowed, or any side effects of changing these settings.

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 short and readable, but the first sentence largely repeats the title, and the second sentence is the only substantive content. It is not bloated, but it could be more information-dense without adding length.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no required parameters, this description is too thin. It does not explain what happens when only timeoutMinutes or only enabled is supplied, whether these settings apply immediately, or what a successful update returns. The sibling read tool makes the domain clear, but the update semantics are underspecified.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'session timeout' and 'persistence enabled flag', which loosely map to timeoutMinutes and enabled, but it does not explicitly bind the names, explain units beyond the parameter name, or clarify optionality and interaction between the two parameters.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('session persistence settings'), and clarifies what is saved: 'session timeout and persistence enabled flag'. It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling get_session_persistence_settings, though it does not explicitly name that counterpart.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The closely related get_session_persistence_settings sibling suggests a read/update pair, but the description never states when to choose this over other terminal_history tools. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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