Submit a summary you wrote

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals that summaries are checked for copying the source and that the item transitions to ready_to_save. This adds meaningful behavioral context. Annotations only indicate not read-only, not open-world, etc., and the description does not contradict them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes workflow context. Every word adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description explains the overall workflow and outcome (item appears in ready_to_save) and the anti-copy check. However, with 5 parameters and zero schema descriptions, it leaves out parameter-level detail and error conditions. The output schema exists but the description does not attempt to cover all dimensions.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explicitly names 'summary' and 'tags' but does not explain 'url', 'batch_id', or 'confidence'. The phrase 'one extracted item' vaguely implies identity via url/batch_id but lacks clarity. Confidence is completely unaddressed.

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 records a summary and tags for one extracted item, using specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes from summarise_pending by specifying it is used after receiving a prompt to write the summary.

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 explicit when-to-use context ('Use this after summarise_pending hands you a prompt to write yourself') and implies a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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