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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It does so meaningfully by disclosing that status is auto-derived from the progress value (0=not_started, 1-99=in_progress, 100=done), which is a non-obvious behavioral consequence. It stops short of describing failure modes or update semantics, but the provided behavior is valuable and non-redundant.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the range, and the resulting behavior. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core action, the input constraint (0-100), and the important auto-derived status side effect. It is mostly complete for an agent to use correctly, though it omits mention of return values or error cases—acceptable for this simplicity but not exhaustive.

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 schema provides only types and ranges with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of the 'progress' parameter, including its accepted range and how values map to statuses. The 'taskId' parameter is left to the schema and name, but it is self-evident enough that this is acceptable.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Update the progress percentage of a task') and specifies the exact resource and field being affected. This distinguishes it from the broader sibling update_task by focusing specifically on progress percentage, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 usage—this is the tool to set progress—but does not explicitly contrast it with update_task or state when to prefer this over alternatives. The status auto-derivation note provides context on what happens after use, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance.

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