report_apply_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the server's response pattern ('next step, repair, or human-pause') and asserts it never submits, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention side effects, state changes, or permission requirements, so it's not fully transparent.

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 long and front-loaded with the core action and outcome constraints. Every word contributes value—no filler or repetition.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description omits critical context: the meaning of observed and obstacle, the overall workflow of progress reporting, and any prerequisites or side effects. For a mutation-like tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters, 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?

The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by defining the status parameter's allowed values (ok | blocked | mismatch), but it leaves application_id, step_id, observed, and obstacle completely unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 reports a step's outcome and lists the allowed statuses (ok | blocked | mismatch). It also distinguishes from submission by explicitly stating 'never a submit,' giving some differentiation from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other reporting tools like report_playbook_result.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (reporting a step's outcome) and an explicit exclusion ('never a submit'). It implies usage during an application process but does not name alternative tools for other reporting scenarios, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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