agora_create_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Auditable' hints at durable/logged state, but there is no disclosure of permissions, immutability or reversibility of the published summary, rate limits, or what publishing triggers. The uncertainty framing is domain color rather than operational behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no padding. It earns its brevity, though the second sentence is more editorial framing than actionable instruction.

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?

For a 6-parameter, 5-required mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the missing parameter meaning and usage context leave an agent guessing how to populate snapshot and coverage IDs correctly.

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% across 6 parameters, with 5 required, yet the description explains none of them. The phrase 'explicit uncertainty' faintly echoes the explicit_uncertainty field, but the interplay of coverage_event_ids and snapshot_start/end_event_id — the most consequential required inputs — is entirely unexplained.

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: 'Publish an auditable SummaryArtifact.' An agent can grasp that this creates a summary artifact. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like agora_create_artifact or agora_publish_artifact, which occupy adjacent semantic space, so it falls short of the top score.

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 second sentence ('Summaries are suggestions with explicit uncertainty, not central truth') conveys a conceptual stance about summaries, not when to create one versus using create_artifact, create_claim, or knowledge-snapshot tools. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternative.

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