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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the write/overwrite profile is carried by structured data. The description's 'replacing the previous value' and 'Requires write permission' add limited context — the replacement semantics largely restate destructiveHint, and the permission note is the only genuinely new fact. Side effects such as whether schedules or parent rollups recalculate are not disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action and the overwrite constraint are front-loaded and the permission prerequisite follows. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the definition is adequate but leaves gaps: it never clarifies the relationship to planitude_update_task, nor whether setting progress to 0 or 100 affects task status or scheduling. Given the destructive hint, a note on what is overwritten and whether it is undoable would round it out.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the 0-100 bounds and the task reference forms (key, uuid, wbs, exact name). The description's '0-100' repeats the schema's minimum/maximum rather than adding format or resolution guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Sets') plus the exact resource and field ('percent complete of an existing task'), with the value domain (0-100). It is clear in isolation, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling planitude_update_task, which plausibly also touches progress, so the agent has no cue about which to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: you set progress when you want to record completion on an existing task. There is no statement of when to prefer this over planitude_update_task, no mention of what happens on tasks whose schedule rolls up from children, and no exclusion of cases where the task is missing or read-only.

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