create_okr_progress_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the auto-wrapping of content_text into the Feishu block format, the requirement for source_title and source_url, and the override behavior when content is passed. It also mentions the API version and UAT environment. It does not discuss permissions, return values, or failure modes, but for a create operation with no annotations, this is adequate.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then immediately provides key usage constraints and the content option. Every sentence adds essential information without repetition or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested content object, no output schema), the description adequately orients the agent: it explains the core Feishu requirement, the simple default path, and the advanced override path. It doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns on success, but the purpose and action are unambiguous from the name and description, making this a minor gap.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between content_text and content: content_text is auto-wrapped into a single-paragraph block, while content can be passed directly for rich formatting. This helps the agent choose the correct parameter based on the desired output.

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 'Add a progress note to an OKR objective or key result', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_okr_progress_records and delete_okr_progress_record by implying it is the creation operation, and adds context about Feishu's content requirements.

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 on when to use the tool (adding progress notes) and provides guidance on choosing between simple content_text and richer content. It mentions Feishu's mandatory fields, implicitly steering the user to provide source_title and source_url. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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