tracking_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait — that speed, ETA, and elapsed time are derived automatically from 'processed' — which helps an agent avoid setting those manually. It omits whether the session must pre-exist, side effects on log/items, and auth requirements.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then a compact Args list. Sized appropriately for six parameters with no filler.

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 explained, and the parameter tour is fairly complete. The main gap is the absence of any routing context among the ten-plus tracking siblings, which an agent selecting among them needs.

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 compensate, and it largely does: it documents all six parameters, including the nested item_updates shape ({name?, id?, status?, processed?, note?}), the 'extra' passthrough for speed/eta/phase, and the level enum values. This is meaningful added meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb ('Met a jour') and resource ('la progression d'une session'), so an agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not differentiate itself from any of the many siblings (tracking_log, tracking_complete, tracking_error, tracking_stop), which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus tracking_log, tracking_complete, or tracking_error. The description only implies usage through the field list, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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