create_okr_progress_record

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions auto-wrapping of content_text and defaults for source_title and source_url. However, it does not cover side effects, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a parameter-heavy 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?

The description is two sentences, the first stating the purpose and the second explaining requirements and options. It is concise and front-loaded with essential information, with no unnecessary words.

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 has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key points: purpose, required params, Feishu requirements, and the simple vs rich content distinction. It could mention return values or error handling, but overall it is fairly complete for the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining Feishu requirements (source_title, source_url, block-structured content) and the auto-wrapping behavior for content_text, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool adds a progress note to an OKR objective or key result. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_okr_progress_record and list_okr_progress_records by explicitly saying 'Add a progress note'.

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 provides when to use the tool and gives instructions for required fields and auto-wrapping. It also advises using the `content` parameter for richer formatting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context is clear.

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