Update your live session

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuinely new context: changes are visible to teammates, and the autonomy flag has a consent precondition ('true only if the user explicitly asked'). It doesn't say whether omitted fields are left unchanged, though idempotentHint implies replacement semantics.

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, front-loaded with the verb and the affected surface. The trailing 'or whether this agent may act...' clause is slightly convoluted but earns its place by covering the third parameter group.

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?

With full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what the agent needs to call it. The notable remaining gap is disambiguation from the 'update_session' sibling, which would materially help selection.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented and the autonomy constraint is largely restated from the schema. The description adds only the framing that title/status are teammate-visible, which is useful but thin.

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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('this live session') and names the two field groups affected (teammate-visible info, and act-on-messages permission). It does not distinguish this from the sibling 'update_session', leaving ambiguity between two similarly named update tools.

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?

Usage is implied by 'what teammates see' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. update_session vs update_live). The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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