session.set_progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Risk: read' aligns with those. It adds maturity L3 and policy requirements, which is some operational context, but it does not describe any behavioral details or side effects of setting progress.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it omits the core function. This reads as under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness, since the single sentence fails to explain what the tool does.

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?

Even with annotations and an output schema present, the description does not explain the tool's purpose, the meaning of the required `stage` parameter, or how `progress` should be used. An agent lacks enough context to invoke this correctly.

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 describes only _requestId, _authorization, and _transactionId; stage, progress, and _expectedSceneRevision lack descriptions. The tool description adds no explanation of what `stage` or `progress` mean, so the most important parameters remain ambiguous.

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 only says it is the PartMe Blender Harness command `session.set_progress`, which essentially restates the tool's name/title. It does not state that it sets progress for a session or what that entails, so an agent cannot determine the action from the description alone.

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 about when to use this tool versus any alternative. The mention of 'per-request argument checks and session policy' is an operational requirement, not usage guidance.

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