update_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation overwrites the existing status and records the change, which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when the work item does not exist (despite the 'upsert' implication).

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 two sentences, immediately states the core purpose, and adds a critical behavioral note about overwriting and recording. It wastes no words and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, is a mutation, lacks annotations and output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, error cases, or the meaning of several parameters. The 'upsert' semantics and defaulting of workItemKey to the session are only hinted in the schema, not described. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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 only 20% (only workItemKey has a description). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies 'status' as the main thing being updated, but leaves 'summary', 'blockers', and 'nextSteps' without semantic explanation. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Upsert') and resource ('current status of a work item'), and clarifies it overwrites status and records the change. It is distinct enough from siblings like 'log_work' or 'record_decision' because it focuses on status updates, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for updating a work item's status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent must infer the tool's niche from its name and description.

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