update_content_progress

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does disclose the main side effects — it mutates the item's stage (SCRIPTED, GENERATING, GENERATED) and attaches script or media. It is silent on whether stage transitions are validated or reversible, what happens to previously attached media or script, whether either is overwritten, and what errors result from an invalid transition.

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?

A single sentence with the action, trigger, and effects front-loaded in that order; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation with fully described schema and enum, the description covers purpose, timing, and effects adequately. Gaps are the absence of any return/confirmation detail (there is no output schema to lean on) and the lack of validation or overwrite semantics when both script and media paths are supplied.

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% and the enum documents valid stage values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the script/media attachment role and typical stages, saying nothing about how mediaUrl and localMediaPath relate or what workspaceId scoping does, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates progress of a content item') plus the lifecycle moments that trigger it (after script generation or media rendering), and names the concrete stage transitions and attachments it performs. It is clearly the pipeline-mutation tool among siblings like list_content_pipeline and get_next_pipeline_item, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'after script generation or media rendering' gives a clear usage trigger tied to pipeline lifecycle, which is more than implied context. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., versus upload_media for a raw upload) or name any alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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