Update Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral details beyond what the name implies, such as whether the update is partial or full, merge semantics, or error behavior. It provides no value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the primary purpose efficiently, but given the complexity of the schema (nested objects), it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose. Still, it earns a 4 for its concise structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should communicate return behavior, but it does not. It also fails to clarify which session variant this targets compared to session3 tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or side effects. With 5 params and nested objects, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operational context.

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% with meaningful descriptions for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Owner of the session', 'Additional Session fields to merge into the body'). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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 the core action clearly: 'Update an existing session by id.' It identifies the verb (update), resource (session), and scope (by id), distinguishing it from create/get/delete. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool lyzr_session3_update, and 'session' is not qualified, which keeps it from a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like session_create, session3_update, or session_delete. No context is provided for choosing this over similar tools, so the agent gets no explicit usage direction.

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