intercom_set_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds the audience ('other sessions') and the discovery purpose, but omits whether the summary overwrites a previous one, how long it persists, and whether publishing requires coordination. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the audience and purpose arrive together. It is perhaps too terse given the tool's coordination role, but nothing is redundant.

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?

One required string parameter and a clear annotation set keep the bar low, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Still missing is what happens to an existing summary and how other sessions consume it, which matters for a coordination tool with many siblings.

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 sole parameter 'summary' has no description in the schema; only maxLength=400 constrains it. The description says 'short status summary' which hints at content but gives no guidance on what to include, whether formatting matters, or what happens at the 400-character limit, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: publish a short status summary for other sessions to discover. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like intercom_send and intercom_reply, though it never names the sibling it replaces (intercom_status) or clarifies the relationship between 'set' and 'status'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With nine siblings including intercom_status and intercom_join, the description leaves the agent to infer that this is a write-side publication of session state rather than a read of status; it never says when to prefer it over intercom_status.

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