Update a session

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the genuinely useful deprecation status and the raw HTTP verb, but says nothing about what updating a session actually changes or what isPendingSyncReset does. Useful but thin against the annotation baseline.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the deprecation warning placed last for emphasis. The first two lines are slightly redundant (title restated as 'Update a specific session identified by id'), but there is no wasted padding overall.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and full annotations, the description covers purpose and deprecation adequately. However, for a mutation tool it never explains the effect of the update or the meaning of isPendingSyncReset, and the deprecation points to an unnamed replacement. Minimum-viable rather than 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented structurally; the mandatory 'id' is echoed as 'identified by id'. The description adds no semantics for 'isPendingSyncReset' beyond the schema's body-parameter note. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 definition gives a clear verb+resource ('Update a session') and pins it down further as updating a specific session by id, plus the underlying operation PUT /sessions/{id}. It is unambiguous, but it does not distinguish this tool from adjacent session tools such as delete_session, end_session, or lock_session. Distinct enough to act on, but no sibling routing.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, and the only guidance is 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists', which never names the replacement. That leaves the agent unable to act on the deprecation. It signals caution but gives no actionable alternative.

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