set_bucket_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Write' signals a mutation, but the description does not say whether the summary is overwritten, whether the bucket must already exist, what happens on invalid bucket IDs, or whether the operation is idempotent. This leaves the agent without important safety and effect information.

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 filler or redundant wording. Every phrase earns its place by identifying the action, the object, and the source of the bucket.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this one-line description leaves significant gaps: the agent still needs to know how to pass dataset, what a successful response looks like, and what side effects occur. The memify_candidates reference provides useful workflow context but does not make the tool definition complete enough for reliable 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%, and the description adds only minimal parameter meaning: 'summary' is the text to write and 'bucket' refers to the bucket identifier. It does not explain the optional 'dataset' parameter, the format or constraints for 'summary', or the relationship between 'bucket_id' and the candidate-generation step beyond the general phrase.

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 action ('Write the summary') and a specific resource ('a global-context bucket'), then ties that resource to a concrete provenance: 'returned by memify_candidates(stale_summaries)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling read/generation tools and tells an agent exactly what operation it performs.

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 implies the correct usage context: this tool is the write step following memify_candidates(stale_summaries), for buckets produced by that function. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the workflow reference is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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