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 full burden. It only states 'update progress' without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Since the update is a mutation, more detail on what changes (e.g., previous value, response format) is expected.

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 sentences deliver purpose and prerequisite with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action: 'Update progress on a key result (metric).'

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 an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the main use case and prerequisite. Minor gap: does not mention whether comment is truly optional or what the outcome confirmation looks like, but output schema likely covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning metric IDs come from another tool, but does not elaborate on parameter formats beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., value as string).

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 updates progress on a key result (metric) and identifies it as the primary tool for weekly OKR check-ins. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workboard_update_activity_tool or workboard_update_user_tool.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to first use workboard_get_my_key_results_tool to find metric IDs, providing a clear prerequisite. It contextualizes usage for weekly check-ins but does not specify when not to use this tool over alternatives.

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