add_progress_entry

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it adds an entry, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or appends, persistence guarantees, access permissions, or consequences of missing context). Significant gap.

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, 22 words, clearly front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes value; no waste. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks details on preconditions (e.g., initialized memory bank), behavior on failure, return values, or data lifecycle. It meets minimum viability but leaves many practical concerns unaddressed.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning ('type-safe', 'categories and metadata' hint at enum usage) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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?

Clearly states verb 'add' and resource 'progress entry to the Memory Bank', with added context about type-safe API and categories. Does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'track_progress', but purpose is well-defined.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., track_progress) or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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