Advanced: attach session policy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation behavior is covered. The description adds useful context that 'Identity remains Aziel Eliab,' clarifying the auth identity, and notes this operates on a 'raw session.' However, it does not explain what happens to existing rules, whether the policy is immediately applied, or what side effects may occur on the session.

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 compact and front-loaded with the important context, action, and alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place, though the final sentence about identity could be more explicitly tied to behavior or authorization.

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?

This is an advanced tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter-level documentation. The description does not explain return behavior, how allow rules combine with existing session policy, or what kv_increment and max_payload_bytes control. Given the tool's complexity, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only vaguely references 'allow rules' without mapping to allow_ops or allow_slugs, and it says nothing about kv_increment or max_payload_bytes. With five parameters and no schema documentation, this is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Attach allow rules on a raw session.' It also distinguishes itself from fraggate_call, which is the default path that 'applies defaults.' The 'advanced/internal' tag further clarifies its targeted role, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly names fraggate_call as the preferred alternative and gives a clear reason: it applies defaults. This tells the agent when to choose the sibling instead. However, it does not spell out specific conditions or scenarios where this tool should be selected beyond the 'advanced/internal' signal.

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