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

Annotations already declare the non-destructive, idempotent mutation profile, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: partial failure semantics ('such updates come back in rejected while the rest apply'), a 60-update cap, and the automatic 'received' transition. It does not describe what a successful response contains or whether statuses can be downgraded, which is a gap for a state-mutating tool with no output schema.

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 operation and batching are front-loaded in the first clause, and nearly every sentence carries a distinct rule (status conditions, rejection behavior, cap). The long run-on sentences mixing status semantics with failure semantics make it denser than necessary, but there is little outright 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 batched mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description supplies the essential lifecycle rules, partial-rejection behavior, and batch limits an agent needs to invoke it safely. The remaining hole is the shape of the response and the exact identity/format of a markerType, which matter for constructing valid updates.

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 50%, and the description largely repeats the status enum description already present in the schema rather than extending it. It does add value for 'note' (used to explain a mismatch) and hints that 'file' is a path or Studio script, but 'markerType' remains undefined beyond 'must match the plan exactly' — an agent cannot tell whether it is an event name, id, or marker label, and 'planId' is never explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Report progress on a tracking plan's events, several per call') and scopes the operation to a plan within an environment. It implicitly separates itself from read tools like list_event_types and get_property_values by casting them as preconditions for the 'verified' status rather than alternatives.

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?

Each status value gets an explicit condition: implemented once code is written, verified only after list_event_types and get_property_values confirm arrival, mismatch when data disagrees. It also warns that marker types must match the plan exactly and that 'received' is auto-set rather than user-assigned, which functions as a when-not-to-use rule for that status. No explicit alternative tool is named for correcting a wrong update, which keeps it from a 5.

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