history_update_project_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key side effect boundary (writes only to Hub, never to source CLI files). However, it omits other behavior an agent might need, such as whether the summary is fully overwritten, permission requirements, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately clarifying the scope boundary. Every clause adds value with no redundant wording.

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 update tool, the core side effect and scope are covered. But ambiguity in 'confirmed durable' and missing parameter semantics mean the agent still lacks enough context to safely invoke it in all cases (e.g., when project_path is required).

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 only 33% (only project_path is described). The description does not compensate by explaining the 'project' or 'summary' parameters or their expected formats, leaving the agent to guess what 'summary' should contain.

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 ('Update') and a specific resource ('confirmed durable project overview in the independent Hub'), with a clear scope boundary ('Hub only'). It distinguishes from the sibling read tool history_get_project_summary by action, though the phrase 'confirmed durable' is somewhat opaque.

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 clearly states the intended context (updating the durable overview in the Hub) and explicitly excludes source CLI session files ('Never writes to any source CLI session files'). It does not name alternative tools, but the usage context is reasonably clear for a targeted update tool.

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