generate_summary

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the editor role requirement and the custom summary_prompt behavior, and the word 'regenerate' implies overwriting. It does not explicitly state that the existing summary is replaced, but that is implied by the term.

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 concise and front-loaded: three short clauses convey the action, the prompt dependency, and the permission requirement. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition of schema information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the permission requirement, and the behavioral nuance of custom prompt usage. It doesn't specify the return value or explicitly mention overwriting, but these are not critical for successful invocation.

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?

The input schema already fully documents session_id with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage; no extra details are needed.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Generate or regenerate') and a specific resource ('AI summary for a Harmonica session'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_summary, which reads a summary, and chat_message or other write tools.

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?

It provides context on when to use the tool (for generating or updating a summary) and mentions the editor role requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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