render_session

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that rendering additionally validates attribution, downgrading unverifiable blue/green quotes to violations and downgrading 'blue' on S-tier comment quotes to green, and warns against moving quotes between advisors. It stops short of describing the exact return payload beyond `content` and the failure/degradation modes.

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 critical directive is correctly front-loaded, but the paragraph crams sequencing, surface routing, gate logic, attribution-validation rules, field-name guidance and a code reference into run-on sentences with heavy parenthetical nesting. Much of it earns its place, yet the density hurts scannability.

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 nested 4-param mutation-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the workflow, parameter conventions and validation side effects an agent needs. Gaps remain around the unexplained `kind` parameter and the precise shape of the returned `content`.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates exact canon field names for `session`, lists accepted aliases, explains the `surface` values and the `depth` default. The `kind` enum (session/opening) is never explained in either the description or schema, 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?

States a specific verb (отрисовать) and resource (canon-объект заседания) and frames it as the mandatory final step of a council session, which distinguishes it from siblings like council_verdict, gate_verdict and export_session. The purpose is clear but delivered inside a dense procedural paragraph rather than a clean one-liner.

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?

Explicit sequencing (call it as the LAST action, then feed `content` to mcp__visualize__show_widget, don't write the verdict in prose), explicit surface selection rules with defaults and fallbacks (widget default, md only if show_widget unavailable, html fallback), and a stated depth default. When-to-use and which alternative to pick are fully spelled out.

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