send_progress_update

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

The description discloses an important behavior not visible in the schema: the recipient defaults to config.json's notification.to, with 'to' acting as an override. With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, but it does not mention side effects like whether this sends an email or records a status somewhere, or whether it is a blocking call. Still, the default-recipient behavior is a meaningful disclosure beyond the schema.

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 a brief context block, no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a practical usage detail. Slightly more spacing in the source than needed, but all content 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?

The tool is a notification-sending operation with six parameters but no annotations and an output schema that likely just confirms delivery. The description covers the recipient override semantics, which is the trickiest part, but does not explain what 'standardized' means, what status values are expected, or how it relates to the sibling email tools. Adequate but a bit more context would improve.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics for the 'to' parameter (config default with override option), but the remaining five parameters (project, status, summary, details, next_steps) receive no additional meaning beyond their names and types. The description partially compensates but does not fully cover the 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 states a specific verb ('send') and resource ('standardized work-progress notification'), which clearly conveys the tool's function. It is distinguishable from email-sending siblings by its 'standardized' framing, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 explains when to use the 'to' parameter (only for one-off overrides) versus the default recipient from config.json, which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not provide any guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling send_simple_email or send_custom_email tools.

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