Update session settings

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, write semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by describing the get-change-send-back cycle, implying the full settings object is written back, though it never states explicitly whether settings are replaced or merged.

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 the action front-loaded and the workflow second. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description supplies the essential workflow. The one remaining gap is what fields the opaque settings object accepts and whether the write is a full replacement, which the schema also leaves open.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The 'settings' parameter is a free-form object with no defined keys, and the description does not enumerate or explain which settings are meaningful, so it adds little beyond 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+resource ("Update the channel's session settings"), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling sessions_update, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between the two.

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?

Prescribes a concrete read-modify-write workflow and names the prerequisite tool (sessions_get_settings), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over sessions_update or sessions_reset, so no exclusions are given.

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