Create or update task summary

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false. The description adds 'idempotently create or replace,' aligns with idempotence, and discloses return format ({ project_id, summary_id }). It explains the summary structure (progress, blockers, next steps), adding behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two lines for main description, then USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN, and RETURNS. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with key 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?

Covers what, when, and what-not well. Output schema is described via return format. Sibling context is clear. Minor gap: no explanation of which parameter uniquely identifies the summary for update, but overall it's quite complete for an upsert tool.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema; however, it does not clarify how the tool identifies the task to update (e.g., whether title or project_id serves as key). Baseline 3 is appropriate given thorough schema.

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 current task summary (progress, blockers, next steps).' This specifies the operation (upsert), the resource (task summary), and its content. It distinguishes from siblings like get_task_summary (read) and upsert_project_summary (project-level).

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' conditions are provided: 'meaningful progress was made, a blocker appeared, or the plan changed' and 'the update fits better as a single fact or decision.' This directly guides the agent on appropriate contexts and alternatives.

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