continuum_record_progress

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond readOnlyHint=false: it is a write, it survives crashes, it creates the run on first call when 'goal' is supplied, and it is cheap enough to call frequently. The upsert-on-first-call side effect is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent needs. It does not state whether repeat calls with the same completed value are idempotent or whether concurrent writers conflict.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the side-effect caveat, then the cost guidance. Nothing is padded and the imperative framing suits an action tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description covers purpose, side effects, and call cadence. However, for a 5-parameter mutation with zero schema descriptions, leaving four parameters undefined is a real completeness gap — particularly run_id, which is required and cannot be guessed.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it explains only 'goal' (its role in run creation). The required 'completed' and 'run_id' plus 'total' and 'failed' are left completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether 'total' is a denominator for a percentage, what 'failed' counts, or how run_id is obtained.

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 ('Record how far through a task you are') and clarifies the unit of work is a completed item. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like continuum_checkpoint or continuum_record_summary, so an agent must infer the difference from the schemas.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Call this as you complete units of work') and a frequency policy ('Cheap: call it often'), which is unusually actionable. It stops short of naming an alternative — e.g., when to prefer continuum_checkpoint over this tool — so the routing decision against siblings remains implicit.

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