Set task summary

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that the tool 'replaces any previous summary' and that there is one summary per task. It also discloses markdown support and where the summary appears. The destructiveHint=false annotation is not contradicted because the replacement is a normal field update, but the description clarifies the overwrite 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and then add essential details (location, markdown, replacement). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with only two string parameters, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the summary is, where it is shown, that markdown is supported, and that it replaces the previous summary. No critical gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described, providing a baseline of 3. The description enriches the 'summary' parameter by specifying that it should be a digest of the task's current state and what has been done, and notes it appears in the Summary tab. This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema's brief description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write or replace') and clearly identifies the resource ('a task's summary'). It also defines the summary's content ('concise digest of the task's current state and what has been done') and location ('Summary tab'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_task_summary or update_task.

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 usage context (setting/replacing a task's summary) and notes it is shown in the Summary tab, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as update_task, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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