Log work progress performed by the agent with automatic task state management
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes | Description of work performed | |
| account_code | Yes | Account code (e.g., "bcp", "jchsoft") | |
| duration_minutes | No | Duration of work in minutes | |
| progress_percent | Yes | New progress percentage (0-100) | |
| task_relative_id | Yes | Relative ID of the task to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at 'automatic task state management' but does not explain what that means (state transitions, side effects, permission requirements, reversibility). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter mutation tool. It should explain what 'automatic task state management' entails and when to use this tool instead of siblings.
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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or optionality beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb (Log) and resource (work progress) with an additional behavior (automatic task state management). Distinguishes from siblings like UpdatePieceTool or AddMessageTool, though it does not explicitly name an 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as UpdatePieceTool or ManageBlockerLinksTool. The only contextual clue is 'performed by the agent', which is helpful but insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.