Update session properties, including title and target project directory, for an existing session ID via OpenCode HTTP MCP.
Update session properties (e.g. title).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'update' but never states whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the session must be active, what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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?
One short sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded, which is good. However, its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than genuine economy, so it cannot score above a middling value.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one of three parameters documented needs the description to fill those gaps; it does not. An agent cannot confidently predict side effects, scoping, or the set of updatable fields.
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 only 33% — only 'directory' is documented, and that text lives in the schema, not the description. The description mentions 'title' as an example but does not clarify what other properties are updatable, nor does it explain the required 'id' or the directory-scoping behavior.
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 (update) and resource (session), and names one concrete field (title). It does not differentiate from siblings like opencode_session_create or opencode_session_revert, but the resource+action pair is unambiguous enough to route correctly.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus opencode_session_create, opencode_session_fork, or opencode_session_revert, and no prerequisites (e.g. must the session exist, must it be idle?). The agent is left to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.