update_module_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using the Litmos API but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (overwrites previous results), its idempotency, required authentication, or rate limits. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and parameters, the second adds API context. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

No output schema exists, and annotations are absent. The description lacks return value information, error handling, and clarification on whether this creates or updates progress. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, more detail is needed to use it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting 'Typically 100 when marking a module complete' and clarifying that the note is optional. This provides practical context not present in the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource 'module result'. It lists the key actions: set score, mark completed, add note. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_module_progress' which is for batch operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'bulk_update_module_progress' should be used for updating multiple users or modules at once, nor does it provide context about prerequisites (e.g., user must be enrolled in course).

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