intercom_set_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the mutation and repeat-call behavior. The description adds the transparency that the summary is published for other sessions to discover, which is useful beyond the schema. It does not contradict 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?

One concise sentence with all necessary information: the action, object, and purpose. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the key verb 'Publish' and the resource.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description plus annotations provide enough to call it correctly. It states what to put in the summary, why, and the mutating behavior is captured by annotations. Minor omission: it doesn't explicitly say that calling it again overwrites the previous summary, though that's implied by idempotentHint and the nature of a status setter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'summary' parameter. It specifies that the summary should be 'short' and should describe what this Codex session is doing, giving meaningful content guidance. However, it does not clarify format, tone, or whether the summary replaces a previous one. For a single param, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 verb 'Publish' with the resource 'short status summary' and specifies the audience and purpose: helping other sessions discover what this Codex session is doing. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like intercom_reply or intercom_send, which focus on interactive communication, and from intercom_status, which likely retrieves status rather than setting it. It lacks an explicit contrast with siblings but the purpose is evident.

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 the usage: use it when you want other sessions to discover what this session is currently working on. That is a contextual signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that intercom_status could be an alternative for status retrieval, so the guidance remains implicit.

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