loyalteez_update_achievement_progress

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses the automatic unlock behavior and that unlocked achievements are returned, which is useful. But it omits permission requirements, whether updates are idempotent, side effects beyond unlock, and error behavior for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences plus a reference link; front-loaded with the core action and outcome. 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description covers the core behavior (progress update, auto-unlock, returned unlocks) but lacks necessary detail on permissions, idempotency, and error handling to be fully complete.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, such as increment semantics or brandId fallback behavior, leaving baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (update) and resource (achievement progress) with a clear outcome: automatic unlock at threshold and returned unlocked achievements. Distinguished from siblings like loyalteez_get_user_achievements (read) and loyalteez_log_activity by focusing on progress mutation.

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?

Clear implied context of updating progress, but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like track_event or log_activity, which might also drive achievement progress. The 'See also' doc link points elsewhere but doesn't route between tools.

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