history_update_project_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: writes only to the independent Hub and never to source Codex stores, which is valuable side-effect context. It does not mention permissions, return behavior, or whether the update is idempotent, but the most essential transparency about write scope is present.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the action ('Update') and the resource. Every word adds value: the scope ('independent Hub only') and the exclusion ('never writes to any source Codex account/session store') are concise and non-redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a solid baseline: it states the core function and a key side-effect boundary. However, it leaves gaps such as what 'confirmed durable' means, whether the summary replaces the entire overview, and what success/failure looks like. Basic use is clear, but important details for safe invocation are missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of the 'project' and 'summary' parameters. The phrase 'project overview' hints that 'summary' might be the new overview text, but it does not explicitly state that 'project' is the identifier or what format the summary should take. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and names the resource as 'the confirmed durable project overview in the independent Hub only,' which precisely identifies the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes this write operation from the sibling read-only tools like history_get_project_summary and history_search.

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 when to use this tool: whenever you need to update the durable project overview. It also draws a clear boundary by stating it never writes to source Codex account/session stores. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the sibling tools are all read-oriented, making the intended context fairly clear.

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