Workboard Update Key Result Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little: nothing about permissions/auth, whether the new value replaces or accumulates against prior progress, whether check-in history is preserved, or whether the update is reversible. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the mutation semantics themselves remain undisclosed.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the check-in context and the prerequisite. Minor verbosity from the line-wrapped phrasing ('without logging into WorkBoard'), but nothing that needs to be cut for 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?

With a 3-parameter schema at full description coverage, an available output schema, and an explicit ID-discovery prerequisite, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly. The remaining gap is behavioral (auth/permissions, overwrite vs. accumulate), which is a real but secondary omission for this complexity level.

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%: value, comment and metric_id are all documented in the schema, including the metric_id provenance pointer. The description only restates the concept of 'a key result's value' and adds no format, unit or constraint detail beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Update progress on a key result (metric)') and scopes the use case to weekly OKR check-ins. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling update tools (workboard_update_workstream_tool, workboard_update_activity_tool), so an agent can pick it without opening 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?

Explicitly names the workflow ('primary tool for weekly OKR check-ins') and gives a concrete prerequisite: call workboard_get_my_key_results_tool first to find metric IDs. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., versus user/team-level key result tools), so it is strong context rather than full routing.

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