iva_conference_session

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only lists operation categories. It does not mention destructive side effects, the confirm requirement for destructive operations, authentication prerequisites, or reversibility. The schema's 'confirm' parameter hints at confirmation behavior, but the description itself gives no behavioral transparency beyond stating the tool is for session management.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's scope and avoids fluff. The trailing 'Clients API v2.28.12' provides useful version context. It is tight, though the long comma-separated category list is somewhat dense and could be structured more cleanly.

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?

The tool has 35 actions, 21 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is far from sufficient as a standalone context source. It omits return-value behavior, pagination details, authentication scope beyond 'public info', and destructive-action safeguards. The action enum descriptions in the schema help, but the description itself leaves major contextual gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 schema already documents all 21 parameters, including the action enum with detailed per-action semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It also does not need to compensate because coverage is high, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs and a resource: 'get/find/update/delete sessions, join/leave, start/stop, timer control, recording, transcription, subtitling, media publication, invitations, public info.' This is clear about what the tool covers and distinguishes it as a session-management tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like iva_conference_session_groups or iva_conference_media, but the operation list is specific enough to orient an agent.

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 guidance is largely implicit: the description lists categories of operations but does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as iva_conference or iva_conference_media. However, the action enum descriptions inside the schema include explicit triggers like "Use when user says 'покажи встречи'" and "Use when user says 'войди в конференцию'", which provide usable selection guidance for individual actions.

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