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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it returns a dict with success status, but it does not disclose details like idempotency, whether progress is cumulative, or any side effects beyond updating progress. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. The return description is brief and useful. It could have included more guidance on when not to use the tool, but for its size it is well structured.

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, full schema coverage, annotations that clarify non-destructive mutation, and a described return value, the description is largely complete. It lacks a little context about how this relates to other onboarding or task-tracking tools, but that is a minor gap.

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 has 100% description coverage, including an enum for 'milestone' and a clear description with default for 'current_task'. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 target resource ('the user's onboarding progress'), and it adds a concrete trigger condition ('when a milestone is reached'). It is not a tautology and is distinctive enough among the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly call out any comparable alternative.

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?

It explicitly says to call this tool when a milestone is reached, which gives a clear context for use. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, so it misses the full 5-point bar.

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