vibemap_report_progress

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds that it appends without changing status, but omits details like side effects, prerequisites, or reversibility. The added value is moderate.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. First states core function, second provides usage context. Every word adds value.

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 two-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose and effect but lacks parameter explanation and behavioral nuance (e.g., prerequisites, response). It is minimally adequate.

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% (only 'summary' has a description). The description does not clarify 'criterionId', which remains undocumented. The agent must infer its meaning, which is insufficient compensation for the schema 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'append' and resource 'criterion timeline', and explicitly distinguishes it from status-changing tools by noting it does not change status. This differentiates it from siblings like vibemap_update_kanban_status.

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 use for surfacing intermediate work without status change, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. No direct comparison to sibling tools is given.

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