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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the live-progress-bar effect and a cadence limit, but does not mention permissions, persistence, error behavior, or whether the update is idempotent, leaving notable gaps for a state-changing call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input guidance and cadence in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 low-complexity progress-reporting tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input combination, expected effect, and call cadence. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value by explaining "Give percent, or current and total (e.g. 12 of 40 files), and a short message." This clarifies how to combine the optional progress parameters beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Report progress on a task or step." The phrase "so the human's live progress bar moves" distinguishes this from sibling tools like taskhold_complete or taskhold_update by scope and effect.

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?

Gives clear usage context with "Call at milestones, every few minutes at most," which tells the agent when to invoke it and how often. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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