Record progress on nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the map is a 'ledger' that 'never blocks you,' and explains status meanings, but does not address side effects like overwriting existing data, permission requirements, or error handling. This is moderate transparency but leaves gaps.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update node status/label/evidence'), and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 rich input schema with per-property descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the primary workflow (status transitions and evidence) effectively. It does not explain all possible updates (e.g., lanes/groups), but the schema fills those gaps, so the tool description is complete enough for the core use case.

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%, and the description adds semantic meaning for status and evidence values (e.g., 'done with evidence' vs 'regressed with evidence'). However, it does not elaborate on parameters like lane, group, submap, or label beyond what the schema already says, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage 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 explicitly states 'Update node status/label/evidence' and provides specific examples of setting statuses (in-progress, done, regressed), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on updating existing nodes rather than declaring, removing, or viewing them.

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 when-to-use guidance for statuses: 'Set in-progress when starting a node... done with evidence when its verification passes, regressed with evidence when a done node breaks.' It also explains the ledger metaphor, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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