Set progress callback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden — yet it adds nothing at all. It does not say that setting a callback mutates downloader state, whether it replaces a previously registered callback, whether it persists, or how the callback is invoked (signature, threading, frequency).

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — a single contentless sentence that front-loads nothing useful.

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?

With one untyped parameter, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description should explain what the callback receives and what registering it changes. None of that is present.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'callback' whose schema is an empty object with no type, description, or signature information, and schema description coverage is 0%. This is the one place the description had to compensate, and it says nothing about the expected callback shape.

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 is a tautology: 'Invoke the set_progress_callback operation' restates the tool name and title without saying what a progress callback is for, what it attaches to, or what it reports. It gives no way to distinguish this from the sibling media_downloader_progress_hook.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this, whether a download must be in flight first, or how it relates to media_downloader_progress_hook and media_downloader_watch. An agent has to guess entirely.

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