summarize_episode_extractive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that this is a side-effect tool and that writes only occur with confirm=true, which is essential transparency. Still, it does not mention consequences of force, allow_partial, or default behavior around latest episode references, leaving gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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 a single sentence with the most important behavioral warning ('Side-effect tool') front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and every word adds useful 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin for a seven-parameter side-effect tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions. It omits what the other parameters do, when the tool should be run, and how it relates to semantic_summarize_episode, so an agent would still need substantial inference to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the seven undocumented parameters. It explains only confirm=true's gating role, while force, max_quotes, podcast_id, episode_ref, allow_partial, and window_seconds receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the 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 states that this tool writes a deterministic extractive summary when confirm=true, giving a clear verb ('write'), resource ('summary'), and side-effect condition. The word 'extractive' and 'deterministic' also differentiate it from the sibling semantic_summarize_episode, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 tells the agent that confirm=true is required before any write happens, which is useful operational guidance for a side-effect tool. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over semantic_summarize_episode or other summarization/workflow siblings, so the usage context is only partially conveyed.

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