update_summary

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

The description explicitly mentions that the full-text index is updated synchronously, which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. The annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them.

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 concise with a clear structure: main action sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the mix of Chinese and English is slightly distracting.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action, parameters, and return value adequately. It mentions the synchronous full-text index update, which is important, but lacks details on error handling or prerequisites.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (session_id, new_status, updated_content). The tool description largely repeats these descriptions without adding new meaning or constraints, so it adds minimal value beyond the 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 the action ('update') and the resource ('existing session summary') and mentions the side effect of updating the full-text index. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'save_summary', which might also modify summaries.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_summary' or other tools. It only describes the operation without offering usage context or exclusions.

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