append_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool modifies an existing session by appending progress, but it does not specify side effects, error handling, requirements like session existence, or any other behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb 'Append'. It is appropriately sized for stating the core purpose, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too brief to provide adequate context. It omits parameter meanings, return values, and behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It does not explain any of the 7 parameters, only vaguely referencing 'progress update' and 'active assistant' without mapping to specific fields like summary, assistant, or session_id.

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 (append), the resource (a progress update), and the target (an existing session), while specifying the source (active assistant). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_session and complete_session, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_session.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an assistant needs to log a progress update to an already-created session. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternative tools for session updates, but the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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