update_session

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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description adds real context beyond that: script changes are saved to history on both sides and can be undone, and the old path continues to work after a rename. It omits permission requirements, but the undo and path behaviors are valuable disclosures.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, four short sentences, and every sentence adds something (undo behavior, note requirement, path behavior). The final sentence is slightly redundant with the session parameter description.

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 full schema coverage, the description covers the key changes, undo semantics, and post-rename path behavior. It could still mention permissions or what happens when only one field is supplied, but it is largely complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters; baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning ('give a short note', the rename path behavior) and no format details 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 (Change) and resource (session's title and/or main script), and clarifies the side effect that a rename renames the folder. It is distinguishable from siblings like rename_take and move_sessions, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as move_sessions or rename_take. The note about using the returned path or session id after a rename is a usage hint, but not routing guidance.

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