update_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms a mutation on an existing entity, but says nothing about whether this is a partial or full replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether it requires ownership/permissions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is no filler, yet nothing earns its place beyond restating the tool name.

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?

A mutation tool with six parameters, a nested metadata object, an enum, no output schema, and no annotations needs substantially more description than five words. An agent cannot determine update semantics, required permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields from this definition.

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 100%, so all six parameters including the required summary_id and the enum-constrained summary_type are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail, so the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas applies.

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 a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('summary'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it offers no scope, no distinction from siblings like update_issue, update_project, or update_status_update, and no indication of what fields are mutable. It is the minimum viable statement of purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the word 'existing', and no mention of alternatives (e.g. create_summary for new records, or delete_summary). The agent must infer entirely from the name which sibling tool applies to its situation.

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