update_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without explaining whether fields are merged or overwritten, whether the summary sheet is created if missing, what permissions are needed, or what response to expect. This lacks critical behavioral transparency for a mutation tool.

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 that states the action and resource immediately. It contains no filler and is appropriately concise for the tool's scope.

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 six optional parameters, a nested custom_fields object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not contextually complete. It omits essential information such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, how custom_fields interacts with standard fields, and what occurs if the summary sheet does not exist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'description, current phase, and task counts' simply restates schema fields and adds no extra meaning about relationships, constraints, or usage peculiarities.

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 clearly identifies an update operation targeting the 'project summary sheet' and lists relevant fields such as description, current phase, and task counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_project, update_task, and update_document, which operate on different resources. The phrasing is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_project or update_task, nor does it mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues. The intended use is only implied by the operation name and listed fields.

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