record_project_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It does disclose the persistence side effect in SQLite and implies an upsert-like behavior with 'Records or updates'. However, it does not clarify whether existing records are overwritten, what validations apply, or what the tool returns after a write, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the persistence fact is the only extra detail included. Every sentence 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?

For a low-complexity tool with a fully documented schema, the description provides the essential persistence context and scope. The main gaps are the lack of explicit create-vs-update semantics and no mention of return values, but these are minor given the schema coverage and simple operation.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; it only references 'progress' and 'one stage,' which maps to the schema but provides no additional detail beyond it.

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 the specific verbs 'Records or updates' and identifies the exact resource: progress for one stage of a construction project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stage_guidance or analyze_quotation. The additional note 'Persists data in SQLite' reinforces that this is a write operation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when a single stage's progress must be recorded or updated and persisted. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are obviously different in scope, so an agent can infer the right choice without confusion.

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