accelo_run_progression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Auto-run' which implies automatic execution, but it doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether the progression is irreversible, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a usage hint and parameter list. Every sentence contributes, though the Args section could be slightly more informative to earn 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?

Given zero annotation coverage, incomplete parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. A mutation tool that advances object status should describe side effects, permissions, irreversibility, and return behavior. The description does not compensate for these structured data gaps.

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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists the parameter names with minimal glosses ('The object type', 'The object's ID', 'The progression ID to execute'), which adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves. It doesn't clarify valid object_type values, expected ID formats, or where progression_id comes from beyond the reference to list_progressions.

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 (auto-run) and resource (progression) to advance an object's status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like accelo_list_progressions. However, it lacks sibling differentiation beyond pointing to list_progressions; other progression tools exist (e.g., accelo_progress_task_to_start, accelo_progress_task_to_done) and the description doesn't clarify when to use this generic tool versus those specific ones.

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 explicitly instructs to use accelo_list_progressions first to find available progression IDs, which is clear context. It doesn't provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like the task-specific progression tools, but the prerequisite discovery step is a strong usage signal.

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