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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds the concrete side effect: it stores the update and, when a value is provided, moves the key result to that value, which is not derivable from the annotations alone. It stops short of describing return data or conflict behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the conditional guidance. No filler, though the second sentence packs two separate ideas (side effect and field guidance) that could be split for sharper scanability.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with 38% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and two optional fields but omits how the other fields (comment, achievements, keyResultId) are expected to be used and says nothing about what the call returns.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters; value, progress, and confidence are already documented in the schema. The description adds usage context for blockers and nextSteps, but achievements, comment, and keyResultId remain unexplained in both the schema and the description, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ("Submit a progress check-in on a key result") and clarifies it is the primary mechanism for recording weekly progress, which separates it from siblings like add_comment or update_key_result_value. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stays short of a 5.

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?

"This is the primary way to record weekly progress" implies when to reach for this tool, and "include blockers and next steps when the user mentions them" gives a conditional trigger. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is offered, leaving the agent to infer the split with update_key_result/update_key_result_value.

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