Update goal progress or status

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

No annotations are provided, but the description adds behavioral context by explaining the semantics of statuses and the intent that a fresh session can pick up instantly, implying persistence. It does not detail overwrite behavior or response format, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence front-loads the core function and all details serve a purpose, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers all three parameters and provides enough context for correct invocation. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It also distinguishes between status and progress updates, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description compensates by fully explaining the status enum and providing a concrete example for progress ('3 of 5 packages built, audit pending'). The meaning of goalId is self-evident from the name.

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 uses specific verbs ('Record progress', 'change its status') with a clear resource ('goal'), and the focus on updating an existing goal distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_goal. It clearly states what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for each status value: 'done' when all success criteria are verifiably met, 'paused' if shelved, 'active' to resume. It also advises updating progress at meaningful milestones, giving clear context on when to use the tool.

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