intercom_set_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('publish') and the purpose, but does not mention whether it overwrites previous summaries or any authentication needs. The transparency is adequate for a simple set action.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. The action and purpose are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and rationale. However, it could mention that the summary overwrites any previous summary for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must elaborate on the 'summary' parameter. However, it only refers to 'short status summary' without adding constraints (e.g., maxLength 400 is in schema but not described), conventions, or examples. This provides minimal added value beyond the parameter name.

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 states the verb 'publish' and the resource 'status summary', and explains the purpose: enabling other sessions to discover what this session is doing. This distinguishes it effectively from siblings like intercom_status (read status) or intercom_list (list items).

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 when to use (to share current activity with other sessions) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context from sibling tools helps, but direct exclusion criteria are missing.

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