Create or update project summary

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states idempotency ('Idempotently'), the create-or-replace nature, and the return value shape ({ project_id, summary_id }). No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage conditions, and return value. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the most critical 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?

Given the 7 parameters, annotations, and output schema (mentioned), the description covers usage guidelines and return value. However, it does not explain how the parameters (e.g., project_id vs git_root) interact to identify the project, which is a minor gap for completeness.

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% with per-parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the return value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantics.

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 'Idempotently create or replace the structured project summary node', specifying the verb (create/replace) and resource (project summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remember_fact and remember_decision by indicating granularity.

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 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' conditions, stating that it is for major changes (architecture, conventions) and not for single facts/decisions, with direct references to alternative tools (remember_fact, remember_decision).

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