update_session_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses project fallback and embodiment option, but omits side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when fields are omitted, which is important for a mutation tool.

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?

Three crisp sentences, front-loaded with the main verb, no filler. Efficiently conveys core action and key fallback.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, description fails to explain return value, parameter interplay, or the semantics of completed_task/author, and no annotations or output schema exist to compensate. As a result, the tool remains underspecified for a 7-param write operation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds grouping (phase, task, blockers) and calls out embodiment, but does not explain parameters like completed_task or author beyond 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?

Description clearly identifies the action ('Update session progress') and lists the updateable aspects (phase, task, blockers), making the purpose distinct from session management siblings. It's specific but does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar tasks.

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?

Provides minimal usage context (project fallback and optional embodiment) but does not specify when to prefer this tool over related tools like update_task_status or get_progress, nor any exclusions.

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