Update chute session

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context they do not carry — the PROPOSED-only precondition and that the widget grid is a FULL replacement rather than a merge. It stops short of stating permission requirements or the response shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the allowed operation and its precondition are front-loaded, and the exclusion is stated second. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 and a medium-complexity nested widget payload, the description covers the critical constraints (proposed-only, full replacement, rule inheritance). It could say more about the optional fields and consequences of replacing widgets, but the schema picks up much of that slack.

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?

With 83% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation beyond the schema: the widgets parameter is a full replacement list governed by the same types and arrangement rules as create_chute_session, which is a semantic an agent would otherwise miss. The remaining parameters (group_name, record_type, farm_id) are left to the schema.

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 (revise/rename/replace) on a precisely scoped resource (a PROPOSED chute session), and cross-references create_chute_session for the widget rules. An agent can distinguish it from create_chute_session and get_chute_session without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (only on PROPOSED sessions, before the user starts them) and when-not (sessions already started at the chute cannot be changed from here, and only the operator can edit those in the app). It names the alternative path, so nothing is left to inference.

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